Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan

From: "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: "Chad Wagner" <chad(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
Date: 2007-01-17 16:28:01
Message-ID: 1169051281.3778.1169737659@webmail.messagingengine.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> That's about 32% dead rows. Might be worth scheduling a vacuum full,
> but it's not like I was afraid it might be. It looks to me like you
> could probably use a faster I/O subsystem in that machine though.

I'll try to schedule a full vacuum tonight. As far as I/O - it's using
SAN over fiber. Not as fast as internal SCSI though...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kim 2007-01-17 16:55:53 Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-01-17 16:19:06 Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan