Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TB-sized databases

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: 2007-11-28 13:48:22
Message-ID: 1196257702.31315.6.camel@PCD12478 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:27 -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> Is there something wrong with:
> set enable_seqscan = off
> ?

Nothing wrong with enable_seqscan = off except it is all or nothing type
of thing... if you want the big table to never use seqscan, but a medium
table which is joined in should use it, then what you do ? And setting
enable_seqscan = off will actually not mean the planner can't use a
sequential scan for the query if no other alternative exist. In any case
it doesn't mean "please throw an error if you can't do this without a
sequential scan". 

In fact an even more useful option would be to ask the planner to throw
error if the expected cost exceeds a certain threshold...

Cheers,
Csaba.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bill MoranDate: 2007-11-28 13:54:41
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-11-28 13:36:48
Subject: Re: GiST indexing tuples

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group