On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, <postgre...@foo.me.uk> wrote: >>> Slow version with bitmapscan enabled: http://explain.depesz.com/s/6I7 >>> Fast version with bitmapscan disabled: http://explain.depesz.com/s/4MWG >> >> If you check the "fast" plan, it has a higher cost compared against >> the "slow" plan. >> >> The difference between cost estimation and actual cost of your >> queries, under relatively precise row estimates, seems to suggest your >> e_c_s or r_p_c aren't a reflection of your hardware's performance. > > But the row estimates are not precise at the top of the join/filter. > It thinks there will 2120 rows, but there are only 11.
Ah... I didn't spot that one... -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
