From: | "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
Date: | 2002-04-17 07:30:08 |
Message-ID: | 00a001c1e5e1$b3fc8e40$cab990c1@atc.unican.es |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 06:51, mlw wrote:
> > > I just think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that if a DBA
creates an
> > > index, there is strong evidence (better than statistics) that the
index need be
> > > used. In the event that an index exists, there is a strong indication
that,
> > > without overwhelming evidence, that the index should be used. You have
admitted
> > > that statistics suck, but the existence of an index must weight
(heavily) on
> > > the evaluation on whether or not to use an index.
On my own few experience I think this could be solved decreasing
random_page_cost, if you would prefer to use indexes than seq scans, then
you can lower random_page_cost to a point in which postgres works as you
want. So the planner would prefer indexes when in standard conditions it
would prefer seq scans.
Regards
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dragos Manzateanu | 2002-04-17 08:42:19 | date_in function |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-17 06:53:48 | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |