| From: | Ragnar Hafstað <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planner issue |
| Date: | 2005-03-22 20:09:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1111522143.7726.48.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 14:36 -0500, Alex Turner wrote:
> I will use an index 220-300, but not 200-300.
> ...
> Seq Scan on propmain (cost=0.00..15517.56 rows=6842 width=4) (actual
> time=0.039..239.760 rows=6847 loops=1)
> ...
> Index Scan using propmain_listprice_i on propmain
> (cost=0.00..22395.95 rows=6842 width=4) (actual time=0.084..25.751
> rows=6847 loops=1)
the rows estimates are accurate, so it is not a question of statistics
anymore.
first make sure effective_cache_size is correctly set, and then
if that is not enough, you might try to lower random_page_cost a bit
gnari
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brandon Metcalf | 2005-03-22 20:44:10 | PostgreSQL on Solaris 8 and ufs |
| Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-03-22 19:36:46 | Re: Planner issue |