Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the advice.
I opted for setting the random_page_cost a bit lower, as that made the
most sense in the context of the current setup where there is quite a
high cache hit ratio. Is 97% high enough?:
=# SELECT
'cache hit rate' AS name,
sum(heap_blks_hit) / (sum(heap
"Van Der Berg, Stefan" wrote:
> I get a similar plan selected on the original query if I set
> enable_seqscan to off. I much prefer the second result.
> My questions are:
> 1. Why is this happening?
Your cost factors don't accurately model actual costs.
> 2. How can I encourage the behavior of
Hi All,
Please see the output from the following query analysis :
=# explain analyze select count(1) from jbpmprocess.jbpm_taskinstance ti
join jbpmprocess.jbpm_task task on (ti.task_ = task.id_ ) join
jbpmprocess.jbpm_processinstance pi on ti.procinst_ = pi.id_ where
ti.isopen_ = true;
QUERY P
