From: | "George Pavlov" <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
Date: | 2007-06-07 22:21:14 |
Message-ID: | 8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86DEA6C5@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-www |
> 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);
2. setting enable_seqscan (in JDBC, say) from the application makes the
whole thing quite a mess (need to do a batch of statements: each query
wrapped in its enable/disable seq scan?) -- ideally, one would like to
issue mostly SQL statements, not config parameters from the application;
3. if this is the recommended suggestion on how to run queries then why
don't we just add HINTS to the system and be done with it...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-06-07 22:29:44 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-07 22:08:20 | Re: subtract a day from the NOW function |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-06-07 22:29:44 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-06-07 22:01:51 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |