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?


Reply via email to