| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joachim Wieland" <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cluster test |
| Date: | 2007-05-25 16:55:10 |
| Message-ID: | 873b1klu6p.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This is in the regression database after a completed regression run, so
> it's possible that it's a bit different state from what's seen at the
> instant the cluster test was running, but it sure looks like the
> "expected" results are what you get from a seqscan. Would you force a
> seqscan and see what EXPLAIN shows as the cost on your machine?
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?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-25 18:02:21 | Re: cluster test |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-25 16:09:43 | Re: cluster test |