Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans?
Date: 2009-04-10 17:46:43
Message-ID: 49DF8603.3000006@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom,

> Right, because they do. If you think otherwise, demonstrate it.
> (bonnie tests approximating a reverse seqscan are not relevant
> to the performance of indexscans.)

Working on it. I *think* I've seen this issue in the field, which is
why I brought it up in the first place, but getting a good test case is,
of course, difficult.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-10 17:57:20 Re: plpgsql arrays
Previous Message Scott Carey 2009-04-10 17:40:46 Re: Using IOZone to simulate DB access patterns