X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D6ADBB09 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:14:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31649-07 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:14:57 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD883DBA4E for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:14:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jAO3EuwT007007; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:14:56 -0500 (EST) To: Pailloncy Jean-Gerard cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 8.1 count(*) distinct: IndexScan/SeqScan In-reply-to: <334D9941-B5B3-4D18-8312-F85D0FB054ED@rilk.com> References: <334D9941-B5B3-4D18-8312-F85D0FB054ED@rilk.com> Comments: In-reply-to Pailloncy Jean-Gerard message dated "Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:14:47 +0100" Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:14:56 -0500 Message-ID: <7006.1132802096@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.005 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005] X-Spam-Score: 0.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/479 X-Sequence-Number: 15736 Pailloncy Jean-Gerard writes: > Why the stupid indexscan plan on the whole table ? Pray tell, what are you using for the planner cost parameters? The only way I can come close to duplicating your numbers is by setting random_page_cost to somewhere around 0.01 ... regards, tom lane