X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E96B11F6646 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:51:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41399-06 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:51:54 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E6611F6641 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:51:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FOwcx-0007om-W6; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:51:52 +0200 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FOwct-0003Y9-00; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:51:47 +0200 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:51:47 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Cc: Peter Eisentraut Subject: Re: Index scan startup time Message-ID: <20060330125147.GA13611@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut References: <200603301359.11038.peter_e@gmx.net> <20060330120206.GA13075@uio.no> <200603301423.54510.peter_e@gmx.net> <20060330123134.GA13408@uio.no> <20060330124251.GK6811@mathom.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060330124251.GK6811@mathom.us> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.14.3 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.101 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101] X-Spam-Score: 0.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/615 X-Sequence-Number: 18052 On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 07:42:53AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > Yes. And the estimates are bad enough (orders of magnitude) that I can't > help but wonder whether pg could come up with a better plan with better > statistics: > >>>>> -> Index Scan using activity_pk on activity (cost=0.00..40717259.91 >>>>> rows=6538650 width=8) (actual time=207356.050..207356.722 rows=100 >>>>> loops=1) Filter: ((state = 10000) OR (state = 10001)) Isn't the rows=100 here because of the LIMIT? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/