On 12/30/2015 2:39 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
On 12/30/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andy Colson <a...@squeakycode.net> writes:
On 12/30/2015 2:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe something weird about the build you're using? What does
pg_config print?
[ output ]
No smoking gun there either.
It might be worthwhile to update to 9.3.10, just in case there is
something wonky about this particular build you've got. But I'm
starting to get the feeling that you may not get an answer short
of tracing through gincostestimate to see where it's going nuts.
regards, tom lane
The entire database is 78Gig, would you expect a "vacuum analyze" to fix
it? I never run it.
Ok, I can reproduce this now. The full vacuum analyze isn't needed.
If I drop and recreate the table it goes back to preferring table scan.
I can "analyze search" and it still table scans.
But once I "vacuum analyze search", then it starts index scanning.
-Andy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
