On 14 Sep 2011, at 20:45, Brian Fehrle wrote:

>> That is only about 1/30th of your table. I don't think a seqscan makes sense 
>> here unless your data is distributed badly.
>> 
> Yeah the more I look at it, the more I think it's postgres _thinking_ that 
> it's faster to do a seqential scan. I'll be playing with the random_page_cost 
> that Ondrej suggested, and schedule a time where I can do some explain 
> analyzes (production server and all).

Before you do that, turn off seqscans (there's a session option for that) and 
see if index scans are actually faster.

Alban Hertroys

--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Reply via email to