| From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, Markus Bertheau ☭ <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql faster than raw SQL? |
| Date: | 2005-03-09 11:20:57 |
| Message-ID: | 422EDC19.4080105@bigfoot.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John A Meinel wrote:
> That sounds more like you had bad statistics on the field1 column, which
> caused postgres to switch from a seqscan to an index scan, only there
> were so many rows with field1='New' that it actually would have been
> faster with a seqscan.
The field1 was a calculated field and with the filter "='New'"
postgres was executing that function on more rows than without filter.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCLtwZ7UpzwH2SGd4RAhU5AJwMeFWwIO/UfdU0QTDo+FTCxPhqYACfYNVl
1yBUEObhZhUDnNDXdsJ/bi0=
=xc8U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2005-03-09 11:27:30 | Re: vacuum full, why multiple times ? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-03-09 07:00:46 | Re: Why would writes to pgsql_tmp bottleneck at 1mb/s? |