Re: An unwanted seqscan

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: An unwanted seqscan
Date: 2007-02-14 08:53:54
Message-ID: 20031.1171443234@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I am having trouble understanding why a seqscan is chosen for this query.

As far as anyone can see from this output, the planner's decisions are
correct: it prefers the plans with the smaller estimated cost. If you
want us to take an interest, provide some more context --- EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output for starters.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claus Guttesen 2007-02-14 09:19:52 Re: quad or dual core Intel CPUs
Previous Message Brian Herlihy 2007-02-14 08:40:13 An unwanted seqscan