Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > SET enable_bitmapscan = 0; > EXPLAIN SELECT conname FROM pg_constraint WHERE conrelid = > 'clstr_tst'::regclass; > QUERY PLAN > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Seq Scan on pg_constraint (cost=0.00..27.15 rows=1 width=64) > Filter: (conrelid = 54538::oid) > (2 rows)
Hm, well, that's why it doesn't want to use a seqscan, but why is the estimate so high? I get 7.35 on my boxes, vs 8.27 (which does agree with yours) for the indexscans. Stranger and stranger. Would you try inserting a "vacuum verbose pg_constraint" into the test as well? Maybe that will tell something relevant. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org