From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "George Pavlov" <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
Date: | 2007-06-07 22:33:48 |
Message-ID: | 415.1181255628@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-www |
"George Pavlov" <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> writes:
>> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com]
>> In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
>> enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
> 1. these cases are not that rare (to me);
It strikes me that you probably need to adjust the planner cost
parameters to reflect reality on your system. Usually dropping
random_page_cost is the way to bias the thing more in favor of
index scans.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rodrigo De León | 2007-06-07 22:34:26 | Re: list all columns in db |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-06-07 22:29:44 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | George Pavlov | 2007-06-07 22:52:16 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-07 22:33:35 | Re: [DOCS] Users comments don't migrate to docs for new version? |