From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tuning seqscan costs
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:15:19 -0400
Message-ID: <9428.1129817719@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dj5gjc$q0g$1@news.host.net>
References: <dj5gjc$q0g$1@news.host.net>
Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl> writes:
> There must be something
> wrong in the planning parameters after all if a plan that is slower by
> a factor of tens or hundreds becomes estimated better than the fast
> variant.
Instead of handwaving, how about showing us EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for
both cases? You didn't even explain how the index you expect it to use
is defined...
Specifying what PG version you are using is also minimum required
information for this sort of question.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tuning seqscan costs
In-Reply-To: <9428.1129817719@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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