| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jean-Michel Pouré <jm(at)poure(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PhpBB 3.x query review |
| Date: | 2008-01-07 17:23:54 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10801070923w7530ddc0t9689b1830b55e5cb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jan 7, 2008 11:06 AM, Jean-Michel Pouré <jm(at)poure(dot)com> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I am reviewing some of PhpBB 3.x queries.
> This allows me to learn more about PostgreSQL.
>
> The thread can be read here:
> http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29260
>
> Do not hesitate to post your review there.
>
> In pg_tables, I saw that there was an extensive use of sequential scans
> in phpbb_banlist, a small table of 60 rows.
What makes you think a seq scan is bad here? Have you compare the
output of explain analyze of the select with enable_seqscan on and
off? I'm willing to bet seqscan is a win here. 60 rows probably fits
in one page, maybe two or three. I can't imagine the random access of
a index lookups beating sequentially scanning a few pages of data.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Michel Pouré | 2008-01-07 17:29:44 | calculating shared data memory space |
| Previous Message | Eric D Nielsen | 2008-01-07 17:10:39 | Re: Server doesn't seem to be listening... |