| From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizer bug?? |
| Date: | 2004-05-25 18:37:20 |
| Message-ID: | 40B39260.2060103@bigfoot.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Josh Berkus wrote:
| Gaetano,
|
|
|>I just only suggesting to decrease that values that are oversized for a
|
| modern
|
|>hardware.
|
|
| Hey, have you had success with those settings that you suggested? I've tried
| tinkering with the relative CPU cost settings, and had mixed results.
| That's why I have no particular recommmendation for them.
|
Usually yes, decreasing that values I'm able to decrease the index scan
cost, so when I enable again the sequential scan the index one is choosed.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAs5Je7UpzwH2SGd4RAg/1AKCUYdTGIm5c7kG/ZXvmb49RWybs2ACgg3Wk
zOHkWnCvbyPgeDCU3pn6UfQ=
=Td0B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-25 18:59:15 | Re: Optimizer bug?? |
| Previous Message | Ismail Kizir | 2004-05-25 18:20:21 | Re: Optimizer bug?? |