Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: An unwanted seqscan
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au>
- Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: An unwanted seqscan
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:53:54 -0500
Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)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
- References:
- An unwanted seqscan
- From: Brian Herlihy
- An unwanted seqscan
- Prev by Date: An unwanted seqscan
- Next by Date: Re: quad or dual core Intel CPUs
- Previous by thread: An unwanted seqscan
- Next by thread: Re: An unwanted seqscan
- Indexes: