Re: seq scan instead of index scan

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Karl Larsson <karl(dot)larsson47(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: seq scan instead of index scan
Date: 2009-12-18 01:37:36
Message-ID: dcc563d10912171737g6a0e6e5em43dafe34d32e1fcd@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Karl Larsson <karl(dot)larsson47(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Best bet is to post the real problem, not a semi-representational made
>> up one.  Unless the made up "test case" is truly representative and
>>  recreates the failure pretty much the same was as the original.
>
> I agree at some level but I generally believe other people won't read
> a big mail like that. In this case it might come to a big post from me
> one day soon. :-)

You're on the one mailing list where they will read big posts. It's
best if you can attach the explain analyze output as an attachment
tho, to keep it's format readable.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2009-12-18 02:20:14 Re: Automatic optimization of IN clauses via INNER JOIN
Previous Message Karl Larsson 2009-12-18 01:17:18 Re: seq scan instead of index scan