Re: index / sequential scan problem - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Paul Thomas
Subject Re: index / sequential scan problem
Date
Msg-id 20030717153825.C27991@bacon
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: index / sequential scan problem  (Fabian Kreitner <fabian.kreitner@ainea-ag.de>)
Responses Re: index / sequential scan problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On 17/07/2003 13:50 Fabian Kreitner wrote:
> [snip]
> Im afraid, no.
> Database has been stopped / started right before this.
> [snip]

1) enable_seqscan = true
> Seq Scan on notiz_objekt a  (cost=0.00..56125.80 rows=15561 width=12)
> (actual time=0.28..2298.71 rows=31122 loops=1)
> [snip]

2) enable_seqscan = false
> Seq Scan on notiz_objekt a  (cost=100000000.00..100111719.36 rows=15561
> width=12) (actual time=0.25..535.75 rows=31122 loops=1)

I've just noticed this. Something is not right here. Look at the crazy
cost estimation for the second query. It looks to me like
enable_indexscan, enable_tidscan, enable_sort, enable_nestloop,
enable_mergejoin or enable_hashjoin have been set to false. Looking at the
source, thats the only way I can see that such large numbers can be
produced.

HTH

--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants         |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk   |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jord Tanner
Date:
Subject: Re: index / sequential scan problem
Next
From: Bill Moran
Date:
Subject: Relation of indices to ANALYZE