| From: | "Thomas T(dot) Thai" <tom(at)minnesota(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: help with getting index scan |
| Date: | 2002-02-25 16:38:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.43.0202251036430.27000-100000@ns01.minnesota.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Thomas T. Thai" <tom(at)minnesota(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> How many distinct cid values do you have? Also, which PG version is
> >> this?
>
> > 5139
>
> Hmm, seems like that ought to be selective enough. What does pg_stats
> show for phone_cat_address? (And phone_cat, for that matter.)
sorry tom, i'm still new to PostgreSQL. what is pg_stats and how do i use
it in the way you've asked?
> If you set enable_seqscan to off, do you get a plan you like better?
> If so, what is it?
with seqscan off, the query still takes about the same about of time
(around 8 secs). i'd like to get it down to 1 if possible.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Doug McNaught | 2002-02-25 16:41:03 | Re: help with getting index scan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-25 16:30:41 | Re: help with getting index scan |