Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>
- To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:23:41 -0500
> How much memory does the box have 2GB > Yes, it takes up space Well, I upped max_fsm_pages to 2000000 because it vacuums were failing with it set to 1500000. However, I'm now autovacuuming, which might be keeping my fsm lower. I didn't realize that setting it too high had negative effects, so I'll try to get a better handle on how large this needs to be.
- References:
- PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Jeremy Haile
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Jeremy Haile
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Chad Wagner
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Jeremy Haile
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Scott Marlowe
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Jeremy Haile
- Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- From: Dave Cramer
- PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- Prev by Date: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- Next by Date: Raid 10 or Raid 5 on Dell PowerEdge
- Previous by thread: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- Next by thread: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
- Indexes: