This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_I/lK3c7WQwYCqmW4vH8XDQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi guys,
I've got a query that is running slower on 8.3 than on 8.1 (with
equivalent server config),
because the join ordering is not the same, at least that's my guess... ;-)
In 8.1.4, table A had 122880 pages, B 112690 pages and C 80600 pages.
Now in 8.3.3, table A has only 77560 pages, B 69580 but C remains at
80600 pages.
In 8.1 the tables were joined in that way (using explain analyse):
C join A join B
now in 8.3:
B join A join C
Beside that, the plan is very similar, but the indexes used are not the
same.
Could the number of disk pages of a table influence the
order in which it is joined, even when it is scanned with an index?
I'm pretty sure it is because of the reduced table sizes,
since the server configuration is the same.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Patrick
--Boundary_(ID_I/lK3c7WQwYCqmW4vH8XDQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-text-flowed"
style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 13px;" lang="x-western">Hi
guys,
<br>
<br>
I've got a query that is running slower on 8.3 than on 8.1 (with
equivalent server config),
<br>
because the join ordering is not the same, at least that's my guess...
;-)
<br>
<br>
In 8.1.4, table A had 122880 pages, B 112690 pages and C 80600 pages.
<br>
Now in 8.3.3, table A has only 77560 pages, B 69580 but C remains at
80600 pages.
<br>
<br>
In 8.1 the tables were joined in that way (using explain analyse):
<br>
C join A join B
<br>
now in 8.3:
<br>
B join A join C
<br>
Beside that, the plan is very similar, but the indexes used are not the
same.
<br>
<br>
Could the number of disk pages of a table influence the
<br>
order in which it is joined, even when it is scanned with an index?
<br>
<br>
I'm pretty sure it is because of the reduced table sizes,
<br>
since the server configuration is the same.
<br>
<br>
Thoughts?
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
Patrick
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_I/lK3c7WQwYCqmW4vH8XDQ)--
|
