| From: | "Tarabas (Manuel Rorarius)" <tarabas(at)tarabas(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with LIKE-Performance |
| Date: | 2006-04-18 15:34:59 |
| Message-ID: | 653249740.20060418173459@tarabas.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Tom,
TL> "Tarabas (Manuel Rorarius)" <tarabas(at)tarabas(dot)de> writes:
>> I get the following explain and I am troubled by the very high
>> "startup_cost" ... does anyone have any idea why that value is so
>> high?
>> {SEQSCAN
>> :startup_cost 100000000.00
TL> You have enable_seqscan = off, no?
You were right, I was testing this and had it removed, but somehow I
must have hit the wrong button in pgadmin and it was not successfully
removed from the database.
After removing the enable_seqscan = off and making sure it was gone,
it is a lot faster again.
Now it takes about 469.841 ms for the select.
TL> Please refrain from posting EXPLAIN VERBOSE unless it's specifically
TL> requested ...
mea culpa, i will not do that again :-)
Best regards
Manuel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hakan Kocaman | 2006-04-18 15:35:30 | Re: Problem with LIKE-Performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-18 15:33:06 | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE performance is bad |