On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic <jasmin.dizdare...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's strange... > If I comment out these rows > --sum(coalesce(e.num_wert,0)), > --sum(coalesce(d.num_wert,0)) > in the given statement, it works fine with enable_material = 'on'. > I didn't change any join.
That's not that strange. The planner thinks that the cost of the plan you're getting with enable_material=on is 729721.34, and the cost of the plan you're getting with enable_material=off is 727904.40, or approximately an 0.2% difference. Any little change you make to anything in the system, or just random changes in your statistics, could cause the plans to bounce back and forth between those two. The real question is why the planner thinks those two cost about the same, when in reality one of them is way faster than the other. You might want to look through the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output and try to figure out which part of the plan is being mis-estimated. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
