Re: Instances where enable_seqscan = false is good

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Ow Mun Heng" <Ow(dot)Mun(dot)Heng(at)wdc(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Instances where enable_seqscan = false is good
Date: 2007-09-04 08:56:18
Message-ID: 87lkbmhkr1.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Ow Mun Heng" <Ow(dot)Mun(dot)Heng(at)wdc(dot)com> writes:

> Have not changed anything in that area. Question is.. Do I need to? or
> should I try out something just to see how it is?
> (any) Recommendations would be good.

Sorry, I don't have all the original plans. Can you post the explain analyze
with and without enable_seqscan now that the stats are giving good
predictions?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alban Hertroys 2007-09-04 09:57:38 Re: Statistics collection question
Previous Message Albe Laurenz 2007-09-04 07:47:32 Re: Connecting to PostgreSQL server with Mono using ident authetication