Re: tuning seqscan costs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: tuning seqscan costs
Date
Msg-id 9428.1129817719@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to tuning seqscan costs  (Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl>)
List pgsql-hackers
Katherine Stoovs <ambrosiac@nedsenta.nl> writes:
> There must be something
> wrong in the planning parameters after all if a plan that is slower by
> a factor of tens or hundreds becomes estimated better than the fast
> variant.

Instead of handwaving, how about showing us EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for
both cases?  You didn't even explain how the index you expect it to use
is defined...

Specifying what PG version you are using is also minimum required
information for this sort of question.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 'a' == 'a '
Next
From: Tony Caduto
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.04 and RedHat/CentOS init script issue and sleep