From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: cluster test |
Date: | 2007-05-25 21:58:58 |
Message-ID: | 23613.1180130338@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> SET enable_bitmapscan = 0;
> EXPLAIN SELECT conname FROM pg_constraint WHERE conrelid = 'clstr_tst'::regclass;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Seq Scan on pg_constraint (cost=0.00..27.15 rows=1 width=64)
> Filter: (conrelid = 54538::oid)
> (2 rows)
Hm, well, that's why it doesn't want to use a seqscan, but why is the
estimate so high? I get 7.35 on my boxes, vs 8.27 (which does agree
with yours) for the indexscans. Stranger and stranger.
Would you try inserting a "vacuum verbose pg_constraint" into the test
as well? Maybe that will tell something relevant.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2007-05-26 09:58:41 | Re: cluster test |
Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2007-05-25 21:21:15 | Re: cluster test |