Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF7D9FB2B4
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:35:39 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 03720-07 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:35:14 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com
	[63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2BB9FB2AD
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:35:14 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com
	([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:35:11 +0000
Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com;
	17 Jan 2007 12:35:11 -0600
Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Jeremy Haile <jhaile@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Chad Wagner <chad.wagner@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <1169051281.3778.1169737659@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1168982580.8275.1169588211@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<26412.1168983547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1168986053.16393.1169598917@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<81961ff50701161444l3f932755m5a6e15ad2d948130@mail.gmail.com>
	<1169002739.19758.1169636285@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<1169012767.6271.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1169044649.19974.1169715743@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<1169050746.9586.44.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<1169051281.3778.1169737659@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1169058911.9586.46.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) 
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:35:11 -0600
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200701/268
X-Sequence-Number: 22869

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:28, Jeremy Haile wrote:
> > That's about 32% dead rows.  Might be worth scheduling a vacuum full,
> > but it's not like I was afraid it might be.  It looks to me like you
> > could probably use a faster I/O subsystem in that machine though.
> 
> I'll try to schedule a full vacuum tonight.  As far as I/O - it's using
> SAN over fiber.  Not as fast as internal SCSI though...

Also, look at the thread going by about index bloat by 4x.  You'll
likely want to reindex after a vacuum full since vacuum full doesn't
reclaim space in indexes and in fact often bloats indexes.