On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:27 -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> Is there something wrong with:
> set enable_seqscan = off
> ?
Nothing wrong with enable_seqscan = off except it is all or nothing type
of thing... if you want the big table to never use seqscan, but a medium
table which is joined in should use it, then what you do ? And setting
enable_seqscan = off will actually not mean the planner can't use a
sequential scan for the query if no other alternative exist. In any case
it doesn't mean "please throw an error if you can't do this without a
sequential scan".
In fact an even more useful option would be to ask the planner to throw
error if the expected cost exceeds a certain threshold...
Cheers,
Csaba.
