| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Vinnik <alvinnik(dot)g(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simple join doesn't use index |
| Date: | 2013-01-29 16:41:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xNX7cEnnceshoTi9U1Jpn1zY6T3GuUk6gJMuFJooZmRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Alex Vinnik <alvinnik(dot)g(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Setting work_mem to 64MB triggers in memory sort but look what happens with
> views look up. PG goes through all records there "Seq Scan on views" instead
> of using visitor_id index and I have only subset of real data to play
> around. Can imagine what cost would be running it against bigger dataset.
> Something else is in play here that makes planner to take this route. Any
> ideas how to gain more insight into planner's inner workings?
did you set effective_cache_seize as noted upthread?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben Chobot | 2013-01-29 17:39:07 | Re: Simple join doesn't use index |
| Previous Message | Filip Rembiałkowski | 2013-01-29 16:19:19 | Re: Simple join doesn't use index |