| From: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: cluster test |
| Date: | 2007-05-26 17:12:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20070526171228.GA4313@mcknight.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 12:14:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Curiouser and curiouser. You still get the indexscan as preferred if
> you EXPLAIN the query after the regression tests complete, right?
> Could you step through cost_seqscan and see how it's arriving at such
> a high value?
Ok... I figured it out... When I was doing the guc patch I modified my
startdb.sh script such that it passes settings on the command line to
postmaster. There I changed seq_page_cost. I know that I have removed those
settings on my laptop computer since then but I seem to have copied it here
on my other machine at that time and so it started with a different
seq_page_cost... *blushing*...
Sorry for the noise... Interesting though that it only made a difference to
the cluster test...
Joachim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2007-05-27 11:18:35 | Re: ecpg USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES missing in msvc build |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-26 16:14:14 | Re: cluster test |