From: | Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Michael G(dot) Martin" <michael(at)vpmonline(dot)com>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Indexes not always used after inserts/updates/vacuum |
Date: | 2002-02-28 15:00:47 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0202281555150.9993-200000@Wotan.suse.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 at 09:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de> writes:
> > I've just found a case where forcing indexscans results in much higher
> > speed.
>
> > -> Index Scan using foo_pkey on foo
> > (cost=0.00..25153.18 rows=352072 width=4)
> > (actual time=0.03..157.57 rows=38432 loops=1)
>
> The major estimation error is evidently in this indexscan. What
> statistics does pg_stats show for this table?
See attached file.
BTW, I've just done the same test on PostgreSQL 7.1 and got similar
results.
cu
Reinhard
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_stats | text/plain | 5.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-28 15:15:35 | Re: Indexes not always used after inserts/updates/vacuum analyze |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-28 14:51:06 | Re: Indexes not always used after inserts/updates/vacuum analyze |