From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: cluster test |
Date: | 2007-05-26 10:40:52 |
Message-ID: | 46580EB4.9030308@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Perhaps this comes down to 64 vs 32 bit datum and aligments and therefore
>> different size tables which because the planner does the lseek to measure the
>> table size shows up as different estimates for sequential scan costs?
>
> But we've got plenty of both in the buildfarm, and none of them are
> showing this failure. So I'm curious to know what's really different
> about Joachim's installation. It seems he must have a pg_constraint
> table enough larger than "normal" to discourage the seqscan, but where
> did that come from? There's only one row in pg_constraint in standard
> template0 --- could he be working with a custom system that has many
> more?
Or maybe some non-default values in postgresql.conf? Like random_page_cost?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2007-05-26 11:40:27 | Re: cluster test |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-26 10:28:33 | Re: Seq scans status update |