| From: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Seq Scan cost shown to be (cost=10000000000.00..10000000001.10) |
| Date: | 2013-05-27 07:58:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAL_0b1t3gMOLwERY6NW6AEJbSsmvwQhvy+9EGGUDHKL+w4+nUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I set enable_seqscan=off and also accidentally dropped the only index
[...]
> Seq Scan on testdata (cost=10000000000.00..10000000001.10 rows=2 width=71)
[...]
> Although, I suspect the (dropped index + enable_seqscan) causes this,
> is the cost shown in explain output some kind of default max or
> something like that for such abnormal cases?
When you set enable_xxx=off, it not actually disables the xxx
operation, it sets the start cost to the high value (10000000000).
--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
Phone: USA +1 (415) 867-9984, Russia +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
Skype: gray-hemp
Jabber: gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Victor Yegorov | 2013-05-27 08:04:21 | Re: Seq Scan cost shown to be (cost=10000000000.00..10000000001.10) |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2013-05-27 07:42:24 | Seq Scan cost shown to be (cost=10000000000.00..10000000001.10) |