X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E01511F6004
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:35:22 -0300 (ADT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id zM4KTewGiWNF
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:35:07 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from mail.mediaskill.de (destiny.mediaskill.de [212.91.236.1])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E1511F608B
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:35:05 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1])
	by mail.mediaskill.de (Merak 8.3.8) with SMTP id WTB45300;
	Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:35:00 +0200
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:34:59 +0200
From: "Tarabas (Manuel Rorarius)" <tarabas@tarabas.de>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.62.14) Professional
Reply-To: "Tarabas (Manuel Rorarius)" <tarabas@tarabas.de>
Organization: mediaskill
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <653249740.20060418173459@tarabas.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problem with LIKE-Performance
In-Reply-To: <13458.1145373620@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <341367953.20060418163513@tarabas.de>
	<13458.1145373620@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200604/377
X-Sequence-Number: 18461

Hi Tom,

TL> "Tarabas (Manuel Rorarius)" <tarabas@tarabas.de> writes:
>> I get the following explain and I am troubled by the very high
>> "startup_cost" ... does anyone have any idea why that value is so
>> high?

>> {SEQSCAN
>>    :startup_cost 100000000.00 

TL> You have enable_seqscan = off, no?

You were right, I was testing this and had it removed, but somehow I
must have hit the wrong button in pgadmin and it was not successfully
removed from the database.

After removing the enable_seqscan = off and making sure it was gone,
it is a lot faster again.

Now it takes about 469.841 ms for the select.

TL> Please refrain from posting EXPLAIN VERBOSE unless it's specifically
TL> requested ...

mea culpa, i will not do that again :-)

Best regards
Manuel