From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Seqscan/Indexscan still a known issue?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:18:42 -0500
Message-ID: <45BAB682.6060709@mochima.com> (raw)
Hi,
I find various references in the list to this issue of queries
being too slow because the planner miscalculates things and
decides to go for a sequenctial scan when an index is available
and would lead to better performance.
Is this still an issue with the latest version? I'm doing some
tests right now, but I have version 7.4 (and not sure when I will
be able to spend the effort to move our system to 8.2).
When I force it via "set enable_seqscan to off", the index scan
takes about 0.1 msec (as reported by explain analyze), whereas
with the default, it chooses a seq. scan, for a total execution
time around 10 msec!! (yes: 100 times slower!). The table has
20 thousand records, and the WHERE part of the query uses one
field that is part of the primary key (as in, the primary key
is the combination of field1,field2, and the query involves a
where field1=1 and some_other_field=2). I don't think I'm doing
something "wrong", and I find no reason not to expect the query
planner to choose an index scan.
For the time being, I'm using an explicit "enable_seqscan off"
in the client code, before executing the select. But I wonder:
Is this still an issue, or has it been solved in the latest
version?
Thanks,
Carlos
--
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: moreno_pg@mochima.com
Subject: Re: Seqscan/Indexscan still a known issue?
In-Reply-To: <45BAB682.6060709@mochima.com>
* 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