From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Karl Larsson <karl(dot)larsson47(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: seq scan instead of index scan |
Date: | 2009-12-18 01:37:36 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10912171737g6a0e6e5em43dafe34d32e1fcd@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Karl Larsson <karl(dot)larsson47(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Best bet is to post the real problem, not a semi-representational made
>> up one. Unless the made up "test case" is truly representative and
>> recreates the failure pretty much the same was as the original.
>
> I agree at some level but I generally believe other people won't read
> a big mail like that. In this case it might come to a big post from me
> one day soon. :-)
You're on the one mailing list where they will read big posts. It's
best if you can attach the explain analyze output as an attachment
tho, to keep it's format readable.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-12-18 02:20:14 | Re: Automatic optimization of IN clauses via INNER JOIN |
Previous Message | Karl Larsson | 2009-12-18 01:17:18 | Re: seq scan instead of index scan |