Re: Optimizer Question/Suggestion

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimizer Question/Suggestion
Date: 2002-11-03 04:43:09
Message-ID: 19188.1036298589@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> At 09:36 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, the system does not actually have any stats about dead tuples.
>> What it knows about are live tuples and total disk pages occupied by
>> the table.

> So what made it choose the index scan?

Well, the main component of the seqscan cost estimate is the total
number of disk pages, while the indexscan cost estimate is driven
by the number of tuples expected to be retrieved.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-11-03 10:25:54 Re: Optimizer Question/Suggestion
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-11-03 01:49:56 Re: CONVERT function is seriously broken