Re: Yet another indexing issue.
От | Stephan Szabo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Yet another indexing issue. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020319155803.G37657-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Yet another indexing issue. ("David Siebert" <david@eclipsecat.com>) |
Ответы |
View INSERTs not returning OID in Postgres 7.2.1
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David Siebert wrote: > Here is the explain output > > Sort (cost=293.24..293.24 rows=1 width=128) > -> Seq Scan on phonecalls (cost=0.00..293.23 rows=1 width=128) > > Here is the Table > CREATE TABLE "phonecalls" ( > "irecnum" int4 DEFAULT nextval('"phonecalls_irecnum_seq"'::text) NOT NULL, > "scaller" varchar(80), > "sphone" varchar(40), > "sphone2" varchar(40), > "squedby" varchar(40), > "sfor" varchar(40), > "dplaceddate" timestamp, > "dtakendate" timestamp, > "dresdate" timestamp, > "ipri" int4, > "istatus" int4, > "iresolution" int4, > "ireques" int4, > "snotes" varchar(3999), > "stakenby" varchar(40), > CONSTRAINT "phonecalls_irecnum_key" UNIQUE ("irecnum") > ); > > Where would one find set enable_seqscan=off; in the docs? To be honest I'm not sure where it's mentioned. It's a big tool that lets you make some gross changes to the optimizer's planning (sets the cost of sequence scan very very high). Does doing it before the explain change the output? Also, does making an index on phonecalls(istatus, sfor) [rather than sfor,istatus] change the choice?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: