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 18:55:07
Message-ID: 1169060107.24972.1169765759@webmail.messagingengine.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> Also, look at the thread going by about index bloat by 4x. You'll
> likely want to reindex after a vacuum full since vacuum full doesn't
> reclaim space in indexes and in fact often bloats indexes.

Thanks for the pointer. That thread might indeed apply to my situation.
I'm going to reindex the the table tonight.

Jeremy Haile

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2007-01-17 19:14:36 Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
Previous Message Jeremy Haile 2007-01-17 18:46:40 Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan