Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans

From: Milan Zamazal <pdm(at)brailcom(dot)org>
To: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans
Date: 2010-01-05 15:14:45
Message-ID: 87k4vw4m8q.fsf@blackbird.nest.zamazal.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

>>>>> "AL" == Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> writes:

AL> Did you try to reduce the cursor_tuple_fraction parameter?

No, good idea, thanks. It helps.

The question is whether it's a good idea to reduce cursor_tuple_fraction
universally, without knowing the table size before (and I'm not going to
use SELECT COUNT(*) for well known reasons). But I can probably
experiment a bit and will see, it looks promising.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Milan Zamazal 2010-01-05 15:18:48 Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans
Previous Message Milan Zamazal 2010-01-05 15:08:54 Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans