Re: Re: Index Backward Scan fast / Index Scan slow ! (Modifié par Pailloncy Jean-Gérard)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pailloncy Jean-Gérard <pailloncy(at)ifrance(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Index Backward Scan fast / Index Scan slow ! (Modifié par Pailloncy Jean-Gérard)
Date: 2004-04-12 20:54:47
Message-ID: 13680.1081803287@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pailloncy_Jean-G=E9rard?= <pailloncy(at)ifrance(dot)com> writes:
>> In 7.4 a VACUUM should be sufficient ... or at least, if it isn't
> Atfer VACUUM:
> Better, but......

... but not much :-(. Okay, could we see VACUUM VERBOSE results for
this table?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-04-12 21:02:47 Re: index v. seqscan for certain values
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2004-04-12 19:55:52 Re: index v. seqscan for certain values