| From: | Dennis Björklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabian Kreitner <fabian(dot)kreitner(at)ainea-ag(dot)de>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: index / sequential scan problem |
| Date: | 2003-07-18 18:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0307182037580.4146-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Adjusting the cpu_tuple_cost to 0.042 got the planner to choose the index.
>
> > Doesn't sound very good and it will most likely make other queries slower.
>
> Seems like a reasonable approach to me --- certainly better than setting
> random_page_cost to physically nonsensical values.
Hehe, just before this letter there was talk about changing
random_page_cost. I kind of responed that 0.042 is not a good random page
cost. But now of course I can see that it says cpu_tuple_cost :-)
Sorry for adding confusion.
--
/Dennis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick Fankhauser | 2003-07-18 19:01:57 | Re: Sanity check requested |
| Previous Message | mallah | 2003-07-18 17:41:10 | Re: Yet another slow join query.. [ SOLVED ] |