Re: An unwanted seqscan
От | Brian Herlihy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: An unwanted seqscan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20070215013046.64730.qmail@web52310.mail.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | An unwanted seqscan (Brian Herlihy <btherl@yahoo.com.au>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi Tom, Sorry, I didn't ask the right question. I meant to ask "Why does it estimate a smaller cost for the seqscan?" With some further staring I was able to find the bad estimate and fix it by increasing the relevant statistics target. Thanks, Brian ----- Original Message ---- From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Brian Herlihy <btherl@yahoo.com.au> Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org> Sent: Wednesday, 14 February, 2007 4:53:54 PM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] An unwanted seqscan Brian Herlihy <btherl@yahoo.com.au> writes: > I am having trouble understanding why a seqscan is chosen for this query. As far as anyone can see from this output, the planner's decisions are correct: it prefers the plans with the smaller estimated cost. If you want us to take an interest, provide some more context --- EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for starters. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: