From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> |
Cc: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
Date: | 2002-04-23 16:42:28 |
Message-ID: | 200204231642.g3NGgSg12778@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
> Hi All.
> I've been reading all the thread and I want to add a few points:
>
> You can set enable_seqscan=off in small or easy queries, but in large
> queries index can speed parts of the query and slow other, so I think it is
> neccesary if you want Postgres to become a Wide-used DBMS that the planner
> could be able to decide accuratelly, in the thread there is a point that
> might be useful, it will be very interesting that the planner could learn
> with previous executions, even there could be a warm-up policy to let
> planner learn about how the DB is working, this info could be stored with DB
> data, and could statistically show how use of index or seqscan works on
> every column of the DB.
Yes, I have always felt it would be good to feed back information from
the executor to the optimizer to help with later estimates. Of course,
I never figured out how to do it. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bradley McLean | 2002-04-23 16:43:03 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-23 16:41:45 | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |