| From: | Palle Girgensohn <girgen(at)pingpong(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug? 8.0 does not use partial index |
| Date: | 2005-01-14 01:24:31 |
| Message-ID: | 7E0FFD6C68B851B2CA429A81@palle.girgensohn.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On fredag, januari 14, 2005 11.52.38 +1100 John Hansen
<john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>> > Dunno if you're desperate enough to try that ... but it does seem to
>> > work.
>
> if yo're going to hack anyway, then why not just simply tell the planner
> that you know better and that it should use the index, regardles of the
> stats collected?
>
> set enable_seqscan=false;
> <your original query here>;
> set enable_seqscan=true;
yeah, maybe I'll do that, but I stumbled on at least one more complicated
query that lost performance from disabling seq_scans. it had a union with a
query that gains performance from disabling seq_scans... heh...
Thanks for your time, guys! I now have some options to move on. I would
love to see this working better in a future version of postgresql, thought
;-)
Regards,
Palle
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-01-14 01:25:13 | Re: Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster) |
| Previous Message | John Hansen | 2005-01-14 00:52:38 | Re: Bug? 8.0 does not use partial index |