| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac(at)nedsenta(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] tuning seqscan costs |
| Date: | 2005-10-20 14:15:19 |
| Message-ID: | 9428.1129817719@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac(at)nedsenta(dot)nl> writes:
> There must be something
> wrong in the planning parameters after all if a plan that is slower by
> a factor of tens or hundreds becomes estimated better than the fast
> variant.
Instead of handwaving, how about showing us EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for
both cases? You didn't even explain how the index you expect it to use
is defined...
Specifying what PG version you are using is also minimum required
information for this sort of question.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tony Caduto | 2005-10-20 14:18:13 | Re: 8.04 and RedHat/CentOS init script issue and sleep |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2005-10-20 14:11:04 | Re: BUG #1962: ECPG and VARCHAR |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-10-20 15:03:58 | Re: cached plans in plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Kuba Ouhrabka | 2005-10-20 14:07:22 | cached plans in plpgsql |