Thread: Answering my own question

I found, on http://www.argudo.org/postgresql/soft-tuning-10.html  my
answer. (Excellent site btw)  What I need to do is prefix my SELECT
statements for this table with the statement :

SET enable_seqscan='false';

as in :

SET enable_seqscan='false';SELECT * FROM pol_xref_d WHERE policy_no=1200079
ORDER BY sequence;


This change makes the response sub-second , a great improvement over the
11+ seconds we're currently experiencing.

I'ld love any explanation of why the Query plan was going sequential versus
indexed.

Gerry

gerry.smit@lombard.ca writes:

> I'ld love any explanation of why the Query plan was going sequential
> versus indexed.

Sorry I miss the original thread, but the question is: Did you vacuum
analyze'd your data?

Regards,
Manuel.

On Wed, 15 May 2002 gerry.smit@lombard.ca wrote:

> I found, on http://www.argudo.org/postgresql/soft-tuning-10.html  my
> answer. (Excellent site btw)  What I need to do is prefix my SELECT
> statements for this table with the statement :
>
> SET enable_seqscan='false';
>
> as in :
>
> SET enable_seqscan='false';SELECT * FROM pol_xref_d WHERE policy_no=1200079
> ORDER BY sequence;

Some else mentioned ANALYZE (or is it ANALYSE?).  Anyway,
I seem to remember reading someplace that with newer versions
of PostgreSQL, when you used to VACUUM on a regular basis,
you were supposed to change over to VACUUM ANALYSE (ANALYZE?)
some (all?) of the time.  My memory is fuzzy about this,
so perhaps the docs will have something on this.

Gord

Matter Realisations     http://www.materialisations.com/
Gordon Haverland, B.Sc. M.Eng. President
101  9504 182 St. NW    Edmonton, AB, CA  T5T 3A7
780/481-8019            ghaverla @ freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
780/993-1274 (cell)