On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 14:48, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:
> Ok,
>
> I'm working on query analysis for a program in ecpg for business puposes. Look
> at what I found on with PG 7.2: Please be cool with my french2english processor,
> I got few bogomips in my brain dedicated to english (should have listen more in
> class..):
> ----
>
> line 962 (in the ecpg source..)
>
> EXPLAIN SELECT t12_bskid, t12_pnb, t12_lne, t12_tck
> FROM T12_20011231
> WHERE t12_bskid >= 1
> ORDER BY t12_bskid, t12_pnb, t12_tck, t12_lne;
>
...
>
>
> => Uh? Seq scan cheaper than index???
>
> => let's disable seqscan to read cost of index:
> postgresql.conf : enable_seqscan = false
You could just do
set enable_seqscan to 'off'
in sql
> Sort (cost=3126.79..3126.79 rows=25693 width=46)
> -> Index Scan using t12_idx_bskid_20011231 on t12_20011231
> (cost=0.00..1244.86 rows=25693 width=46)
>
> => Uh? seq scan'cost is lower than index scan?? => mailto hackers
It often is. Really.
> ----
>
> What's your opinion?
What are the real performance numbers ?
If they are other than what postgresql optimiser thinks you can change
them in system table.
----------------
Hannu
