Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
- To: Frank Schoep <frank(at)ffnn(dot)nl>
- Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:23:29 -0400
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:43:18AM +0200, Frank Schoep wrote:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:28 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:(cost=0.00..37612.76 rows=14221 width=48) (actual time=0.125..13.686 rows=2000 loops=1)
[snip]
I'm not an expert at how the planner decides which query plan to use,
Neither am I. :) I do notice that the estimated number of rows is significantly larger than the real number; you may want to bump up your statistics a bit to see if it can estimate better.
Mike Stone
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- From: Frank Schoep
- Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- References:
- Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- From: Frank Schoep
- Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
- Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- From: Frank Schoep
- Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- Prev by Date: Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- Next by Date: Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- Previous by thread: Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- Next by thread: Re: Bad planner decision - bitmap scan instead of index
- Indexes: