From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why |
Date: | 2005-01-20 14:14:31 |
Message-ID: | 20050120061205.T35934@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in
> question.
>
> The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause
> changes from ports.broken to ports.deprecated. I don't see why.
> Well, I do see why: a sequential scan of a 130,000 rows. The query
> goes from 13ms to 1100ms because the of this. The full plans are at
> http://rafb.net/paste/results/v8ccvQ54.html
>
> I have tried some tuning by:
>
> set effective_cache_size to 4000, was 1000
> set random_page_cost to 1, was 4
>
> The resulting plan changes, but no speed improvment, are at
> http://rafb.net/paste/results/rV8khJ18.html
>
> Any suggestions please?
As a question, what does it do if enable_hashjoin is false? I'm wondering
if it'll pick a nested loop for that step for the element/ports join and
what it estimates the cost to be.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Max Reymond | 2005-01-20 14:23:03 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Previous Message | Hervé Piedvache | 2005-01-20 14:03:31 | PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |