Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > >>> It seems pretty clear that you've never vacuumed nor analyzed these >>> tables ... else the planner would have some clue about their sizes. >>> Do that and then see what you get. >>> >> They occur in fine time. That's good, thanks. But jeeze, can't >> postgres figure this out for itself? >> > > I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if PostgreSQL did a full table scan > before each query to figure out the total size of the involved tables. > Nope.
But let's say the query optimizer thought the table had one row. The the query starts, and 111,000 rows later... It seems that a mismatch between the static table size, and the actual one counted as you go, would be a quick check. That could set a flag for later background processing.... -Bryce ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings