Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Date: 2002-04-17 21:13:04
Message-ID: 200204172113.g3HLD4w03659@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

mlw wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > Now, given the choice of the two strategies on a table, both pretty
> > > close to one another, the risk of poor performance for using the
> > > index scan is minimal based on the statistics, but the risk of poor
> > > performance for using the sequential scan is quite high on a large
> > > table.
> >
> > I thought that's what the various cost estimates were there to cover.
> > If this is all you're saying, then the feature is already there.
>
> The point is that if the index plan is < 20% more costly than the sequential
> scan, it is probably less risky.

I just posted on this topic. Index scan is more risky, no question
about it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mlw 2002-04-17 21:16:23 Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Previous Message mlw 2002-04-17 21:10:30 Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE