| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Dutcher <dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Tim Truman' <tim(at)advam(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Forcing the use of particular execution plans |
| Date: | 2006-09-27 20:13:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20060927201350.GS19827@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0500, Dave Dutcher wrote:
> To make the planner prefer an index scan over a seq scan, I would first
> check the statistics again, and then you can try setting enable_seqscan to
> false (enable_seqscan is meant more for testing than production) or, you
> could try reducing random_page_cost, but you should test that against a
> range of queries before putting it in production.
Index scans are also pretty picky about correlation. If you have really
low correlation you don't want to index scan, but I think our current
estimates make it too eager to switch to a seqscan.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2006-09-27 20:27:56 | Re: autovacuum on a -mostly- r/o table |
| Previous Message | Tobias Brox | 2006-09-27 19:01:45 | Re: Merge Join vs Nested Loop |