Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why
Date: 2005-01-20 14:14:31
Message-ID: 20050120061205.T35934@megazone.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
> question.
>
> The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause
> changes from ports.broken to ports.deprecated. I don't see why.
> Well, I do see why: a sequential scan of a 130,000 rows. The query
> goes from 13ms to 1100ms because the of this. The full plans are at
> http://rafb.net/paste/results/v8ccvQ54.html
>
> I have tried some tuning by:
>
> set effective_cache_size to 4000, was 1000
> set random_page_cost to 1, was 4
>
> The resulting plan changes, but no speed improvment, are at
> http://rafb.net/paste/results/rV8khJ18.html
>
> Any suggestions please?

As a question, what does it do if enable_hashjoin is false? I'm wondering
if it'll pick a nested loop for that step for the element/ports join and
what it estimates the cost to be.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Max Reymond 2005-01-20 14:23:03 Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Previous Message Hervé Piedvache 2005-01-20 14:03:31 PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering