>
> Okay, this shows that you are already in "C" locale, since otherwise it
> wouldn't try it at all. Have you done a vacuum analyze recently?
> What does vacuum analyze verbose tbl_access; give you?
I don't remember the exactly time I did it, but I run just vacuum
yesterday. Anyway here goes my vacuum analyze result:
access=# vacuum analyze verbose tbl_access;
INFO: --Relation public.tbl_access--
INFO: Pages 27595: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 1193987: Vac 0, Keep 0,
UnUsed 34276.
Total CPU 1.78s/1.68u sec elapsed 3.51 sec.
INFO: Analyzing public.tbl_access
VACUUM
access=# explain analyze select * from tbl_access where ip like '12%157';
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tbl_access (cost=0.00..42519.84 rows=136 width=133)
(actual time=646.06..20478.91 rows=1391 loops=1)
Filter: (ip ~~ '12%157'::text)
Total runtime: 20482.46 msec
(3 rows)
>
> The real rows and estimated rows seem far enough off that it might be
> getting confused as to which plan is best.
>
>
yes, I see that. :(
I set enable_seqscan = off yesterday and got the results I was
expecting. Would it be expensive to leave it disabled?
william
--
Perl combines all of the worst aspects of BASIC, C and line noise.
-- Keith Packard