Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Chad Wagner
Subject Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
Date
Msg-id 81961ff50701161444l3f932755m5a6e15ad2d948130@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan  ("Jeremy Haile" <jhaile@fastmail.fm>)
Responses Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
List pgsql-performance
On 1/16/07, Jeremy Haile <jhaile@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Even if unrelated, do you think disk fragmentation would have negative
effects?  Is it worth trying to defragment the drive on a regular basis
in Windows?

Out of curiosity, is this table heavily updated or deleted from?  Perhaps there is an unfavorable "correlation" between the btree and data?  Can you dump the results of

select attname, null_frac, avg_width, n_distinct, correlation from pg_stats where tablename = 'transaction_facts'




--
Chad
http://www.postgresqlforums.com/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jeremy Haile"
Date:
Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
Next
From: "Jeremy Haile"
Date:
Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan