From: | Philip Molter <philip(at)datafoundry(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Tregar <sam(at)tregar(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Determining scan types |
Date: | 2001-07-03 14:51:21 |
Message-ID: | 20010703095121.T12723@datafoundry.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:42:37AM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
: On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Philip Molter wrote:
:
: > What causes this and how can I fix it?
:
: Have you tried a VACUUM ANALYZE? For some reason Postgres isn't able to
: use its indexes fully unless you VACUUM ANALYZE often.
:
: I consider this a bug but I gather the developers are OK with it.
Yes. In fact, I have to VACUUM ANALYZE the tables every half hour on
this constantly running system or else kernel CPU usage rises to
unacceptable levels (another thing I consider a bug). Like I said, in
the middle of the night (probably after one of these analyses), it
switched from using index scans where appropriate to using sequential
scans for everything. If I turn off sequential scans altogether, it
uses the indices, but I don't get the performance of benefits of using
sequential scans when appropriate.
* Philip Molter
* DataFoundry.net
* http://www.datafoundry.net/
* philip(at)datafoundry(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alok K. Dhir | 2001-07-03 15:01:39 | Please help recover data - lost pg_control |
Previous Message | Mihai Gheorghiu | 2001-07-03 14:47:35 | Regression |