Re: generalizing the planner knobs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: generalizing the planner knobs
Date: 2005-12-08 18:07:10
Message-ID: 12408.1134065230@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> BTW, there's another end to the 'enable_seqscan=false' problem... it
>> sometimes doesn't work!

> I have often considered that this is an indication that seq scan is
> actually the better plan...

There are cases where it is the *only* plan, eg, you have no relevant
indexes. I am not sure that applies to Jim's complaint though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-12-08 18:09:53 Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-12-08 17:50:35 bgwriter leaks resources after errors