On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:56:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > The reported behavior was that the planner would prefer to > > sequential-scan the table rather than use the index, even if > > enable_seqscan=off. I'm not sure what the query looked like, but it > > could have been something best implemented as a nested loop w/inner > > index-scan. > > Remember also that "enable_seqscan=off" merely adds 1e10 to the > estimated cost of seqscans. For sufficiently large tables this is not > exactly a hard disable, just a thumb on the scales. But I don't know > what your definition of "extremely large indexes" is.
Wow, do we need to bump up that value based on larger modern hardware? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
