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

Re: 8.1 count(*) distinct: IndexScan/SeqScan

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pailloncy Jean-Gerard <jg(at)rilk(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.1 count(*) distinct: IndexScan/SeqScan
Date: 2005-11-24 03:14:56
Message-ID: 7006.1132802096@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Pailloncy Jean-Gerard <jg(at)rilk(dot)com> writes:
> Why the stupid indexscan plan on the whole table ?

Pray tell, what are you using for the planner cost parameters?
The only way I can come close to duplicating your numbers is
by setting random_page_cost to somewhere around 0.01 ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: andrewDate: 2005-11-24 05:20:19
Subject: Re: 8.1 count(*) distinct: IndexScan/SeqScan
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2005-11-24 02:29:49
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

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