Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why
| От | Stephan Szabo | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20050120061205.T35934@megazone.bigpanda.com обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | index scan of whole table, can't see why ("Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org>) | 
| Ответы | Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why | 
| Список | pgsql-performance | 
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dan Langille wrote: > Hi folks, > > Running on 7.4.2, recently vacuum analysed the three tables in > question. > > The query plan in question changes dramatically when a WHERE clause > changes from ports.broken to ports.deprecated. I don't see why. > Well, I do see why: a sequential scan of a 130,000 rows. The query > goes from 13ms to 1100ms because the of this. The full plans are at > http://rafb.net/paste/results/v8ccvQ54.html > > I have tried some tuning by: > > set effective_cache_size to 4000, was 1000 > set random_page_cost to 1, was 4 > > The resulting plan changes, but no speed improvment, are at > http://rafb.net/paste/results/rV8khJ18.html > > Any suggestions please? As a question, what does it do if enable_hashjoin is false? I'm wondering if it'll pick a nested loop for that step for the element/ports join and what it estimates the cost to be.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: