| From: | Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Charles Tassell <ctassell(at)isn(dot)net>, Diego Schvartzman <dschvar(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Lista PGSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance |
| Date: | 2000-05-19 08:37:24 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.10.10005190134140.543-100000@foo.west.spy.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
This was not a bug report. I simply said that I had the same
problem where a large table should have been using an index and was not,
so I vacuumed the table, and it used the index.
Are you a developer? Did this really read as a bug report? Is
anyone out there creating largish tables, adding an index to them, and
having the index used without a vacuum? Is it really that much of a
problem?
# > I ran into this exact problem, and it was *very* significant on a
# > 15M row table I have. :) It didn't seem to want to use the index, even
# > freshly created, without a vacuum analyze.
#
# grrrr....
#
# FOR THE LAST TIME, THESE BUG REPORTS ARE PRETTY MUCH **USELESS**
# TO THE DEVELOPERS UNLESS YOU GIVE:
#
# THE TABLE STRUCTURE,
# THE QUERY, AND
# THE OUTPUT OF 'EXPLAIN'
#
# Just because someone is a database guru doesn't mean they are also
# clairvoyant. :)
#
# thanks,
# -Alfred
#
#
--
dustin sallings The world is watching America,
http://2852210114/~dustin/ and America is watching TV.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias Urlichs | 2000-05-19 09:14:24 | Re: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server)) |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-05-19 08:00:29 | Re: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server)) |