Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index

From: markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz
To: "markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Harry Hehl <Harry(dot)Hehl(at)diskstream(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index
Date: 2006-04-11 22:20:55
Message-ID: 1144794055.443c2bc79c75b@www.paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Quoting "markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>:

> Hmm - that first query needs to do a sort, so you might want to
> experiment with
> the sort_mem parameter

Oops - I mean work_mem...

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-04-11 22:49:59 Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index
Previous Message markir 2006-04-11 22:17:54 Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index