| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed. What am I doing wrong? |
| Date: | 2003-01-07 03:15:33 |
| Message-ID: | 9413.1041909333@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
> Yikes! Five times slower! But then I took Tom's incredibly helpful
> suggestion to disable the sequential scan:
Ideally, you shouldn't have to do that. Now that you have the correct
indexes in place, could you show us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for both
cases (enable_seqscan = on and off)?
Also, you might try leaving enable_seqscan = on, and seeing how far you
have to decrease random_page_cost to get the planner to choose
indexscan.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-01-07 03:16:24 | PostgreSQL and memory usage |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-01-07 03:08:56 | Re: I feel the need for speed. What am I doing wrong? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-01-07 03:16:24 | PostgreSQL and memory usage |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-01-07 03:08:56 | Re: I feel the need for speed. What am I doing wrong? |