pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query Performance question
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:07:10 +0200
Message-ID: <lpvviu$en3$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1405304448354.64039@turner.com>
References: <1405292142269.59034@turner.com>
	<53C32B20.8010100@fuzzy.cz>
	<1405304448354.64039@turner.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

Magers, James, 14.07.2014 04:20:

> Thank you for your feedback.  I am attaching the requested information.  
> While I do not think the query is necessarily inefficient, I believe  a sequence scan would be more efficient.  

You can try

set enable_indexscan = off;
set enable_bitmapscan = off;

and then run your query. 

But I would be very surprised if a seq scan (which reads through the whole table) was faster than those 4ms you have now




-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

view thread (21+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <lpvviu$en3$1@ger.gmane.org>
Permalink:  ../lpvviu$en3$1@ger.gmane.org/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/lpvviu$en3$1@ger.gmane.org

copy link · copy postgr.es

reply

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: spam_eater@gmx.net
  Subject: Re: Query Performance question
  In-Reply-To: <lpvviu$en3$1@ger.gmane.org>

* 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