Hm. Well, it looks like setting enable_seqscan=false is session specific, so it seems like I can use it with this query alone; but it sounds like even if that works, it's a bad practice. (Is that true?)
My effective_cache_size is 1530000kB On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > <alessan...@path.com> wrote: > > To answer your (non-)question about Heroku, it's a cloud service, so I > don't > > host PostgreSQL myself. I'm not sure how much I can mess with things like > > GUC since I don't even have access to the "postgres" database on the > server. > > I am a long time SQL user but new to Postgres so I welcome suggestions on > > where to start with that sort of thing. Setting enable_seqscan=false > made a > > huge difference, so I think I'll start there. > > It's not a good idea to abuse of the enable_stuff settings, they're > for debugging, not for general use. In particular, disable sequential > scans everywhere can have a disastrous effect on performance. > > It sounds as if PG had a misconfigured effective_cache_size. What does > "show effective_cache_size" tell you? >
