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 98E7CDA881;
	Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:15:16 -0300 (ADT)
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 10062-08; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:15:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0063DA8AB;
	Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:15:14 -0300 (ADT)
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 j9KEFJo9009429;
	Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tuning seqscan costs 
In-reply-to: <dj5gjc$q0g$1@news.host.net> 
References: <dj5gjc$q0g$1@news.host.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl>
	message dated "Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:51:55 -0000"
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:15:19 -0400
Message-ID: <9428.1129817719@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/284
X-Sequence-Number: 15052

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