> > BTW, there's another end to the 'enable_seqscan=false' problem... it > sometimes doesn't work! Last I looked, enable_seqscan=false only added a > fixed overhead cost to a seqscan (1000000 IIRC). The problem is, some > queries will produce estimates for other methodes that are more > expensive than a seqscan even with the added burden. If instead of > adding a fixed amount enable_seqscan=false multiplied by some amount > then this would probably be impossible to occur. > > (And before someone asks, no, I don't remember which query was actually > faster...) > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 >
I have often considered that this is an indication that seq scan is actually the better plan... although, i have to admit that is a little confusing that enable_seqscan = false actually let you use a seqscan if the other plans are bad enough -- regards, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
