From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | johnnnnnn <john(at)phaedrusdeinus(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] I feel the need for speed. What am I doing wrong? |
Date: | 2003-01-08 04:07:35 |
Message-ID: | 645.1041998855@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
johnnnnnn <john(at)phaedrusdeinus(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:10:06PM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
>> -> Seq Scan on CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB a
>> (cost=100000000.00..100112549.62 rows=6139062 width=24)
> Those big round numbers suggest that you haven't run vacuum analyze on
> all of your tables.
No; the 100000000.00 is a tipoff that he's set enable_seqscan off, but
the system is using a seqscan anyway because it cannot find any other
plan.
"SET enable_seqscan = off" does not prevent the planner from generating
seqscan plans, it just adds 100000000.00 to the cost estimate. That
will generally cause the planner to pick another plan --- if it can find
one. In this case it evidently cannot find any indexscan alternative.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:15:09 | Re: double precision to numeric overflow error |
Previous Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2003-01-08 03:20:25 | shared buffers in config |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-08 04:15:34 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 03:50:32 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |