From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Brian Herlihy <btherl@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: An unwanted seqscan
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:53:54 -0500
Message-ID: <20031.1171443234@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <379816.98018.qm@web52311.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <379816.98018.qm@web52311.mail.yahoo.com>
Brian Herlihy <btherl@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> I am having trouble understanding why a seqscan is chosen for this query.
As far as anyone can see from this output, the planner's decisions are
correct: it prefers the plans with the smaller estimated cost. If you
want us to take an interest, provide some more context --- EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output for starters.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, btherl@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: An unwanted seqscan
In-Reply-To: <20031.1171443234@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox