Hi Dave,
Thanks to reply.
I run it now in a Postgres 8.1.4 my notebook (win XP) and the
performance is really much better:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT Contrato.Id
, Min( prog.dtsemeio ) AS DtSemIni
, Max( prog.dtsemeio ) AS DtSemFim
, Min( prog.dtembarque ) AS DtEmbIni
, Max( prog.dtembarque ) AS DtEmbFim
, Min( prog.dtentrega ) AS DtEntIni
, Max( prog.dtentrega ) AS DtEntFim
, COUNT(prog.*) AS QtSem
, SUM( CASE WHEN Prog.DtSemeio >= '20060814' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END )
AS QtSemAb
FROM bvz.Contrato
LEFT OUTER JOIN bvz.Prog ON prog.Fk_Contrato = Contrato.Id
WHERE Contrato.Fk_Clifor = 243
GROUP BY 1;

GroupAggregate (cost=2.18..7312.45 rows=42 width=48) (actual
time=0.446..13.195 rows=42 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=2.18..7291.22 rows=883 width=48)
(actual time=0.103..10.518 rows=1536 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using pk_contrato on contrato (cost=0.00..100.29
rows=42 width=4) (actual time=0.048..3.163 rows=42 loops=1)
Filter: (fk_clifor = 243)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on prog (cost=2.18..170.59 rows=50
width=48) (actual time=0.027..0.132 rows=37 loops=42)
Recheck Cond: (prog.fk_contrato = "outer".id)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on fki_prog_contrato
(cost=0.00..2.18 rows=50 width=0) (actual time=0.018..0.018 rows=37
loops=42)
Index Cond: (prog.fk_contrato = "outer".id)
Total runtime: 13.399 ms

Where I can see the current random_page_cost value ? There are some hint
about what value I must set ?
Thanks in advance.
Luiz

Dave Dutcher wrote:
>> Well, in this case the queries with LEFT OUTER join and with
>> inner join
>> returns the same result set. I don´t have the sufficient knowledge to
>> affirm , but I suspect that if the query plan used for
>> fk_clifor = 352
>> and with left outer join is applied for the first query
>> (fk_clifor = 243
>> with left outer join)
>> we will have a better total runtime.
>> There are some manner to make this test ?
>>
>
> It looks like Postgres used a nested loop join for the fast query and a
> merge join for the slow query. I don't think the left join is causing any
> problems. On the slower query the cost estimate of the nested loop must
> have been higher than the cost estimate of the merge join because of more
> rows. You could try disabling merge joins with the command "set
> enable_mergejoin=false". Then run the explain analyze again to see if it is
> faster.
>
> If it is faster without merge join, then you could try to change your
> settings to make the planner prefer the nested loop. I'm not sure what the
> best way to do that is. Maybe you could try reducing the random_page_cost,
> which should make index scans cheaper.
>
> Dave
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailtogsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
> Luiz K. Matsumura
>
>
> Where I can see the current random_page_cost value ? There
> are some hint
> about what value I must set ?
> Thanks in advance.
> Luiz

On Linux the random_page_cost is set in the postgresql.conf file. You can
see what it is set to by typing "show random_page_cost". This page has some
guidelines on random_page_cost and other server settings:

http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/

As it says on the page, make sure you test a variety of queries.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly