Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A18D9FB323 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:52:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93868-01 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:52:09 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 01:12:11.522104 by SQLgrey- Received: from edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com (63-246-7-171.contegix.com [63.246.7.171]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AA99FB302 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:52:09 -0300 (ADT) thread-index: AcbytDhyP07NZmIZS5io3Dh5G9xICw== Received: from [192.168.0.20] ([62.232.55.86]) by edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:52:05 -0400 Message-ID: <45362363.2060904@enterprisedb.com> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:51:47 +0100 From: "Heikki Linnakangas" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060915) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rohit_Behl" Cc: "Merlin Moncure" , Subject: Re: Jdbc/postgres performance References: <407937EC76157D439EB0C9F9B6047EFD40017D@BLRKECMSG04.ad.infosys.com> <407937EC76157D439EB0C9F9B6047EFD40017E@BLRKECMSG04.ad.infosys.com> In-Reply-To: <407937EC76157D439EB0C9F9B6047EFD40017E@BLRKECMSG04.ad.infosys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2006 12:52:05.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[36B4EE20:01C6F2B4] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.199 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/351 X-Sequence-Number: 21480 Rohit_Behl wrote: > Hi > > I made the following changes to the conf file: > > enable_indexscan = true > > enable_seqscan = false > > We also have a large amount of data being inserted into our tables. I was just wondering if this could have an impact on the inserts since I guess this change is on the database. enable_seqscan shouldn't affect plain inserts, but it will affect *every* query in the system. I would suggest using setting "prepareThreshold=0" in the JDBC driver connection URL, or calling pstmt.setPrepareThreshold(0) in the application. That tells the driver not to use server-side prepare, and the query will be re-planned every time you execute it with the real values of the parameters. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com