On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:16:12AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 05:59:59PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > > Well, if I don't do this it wants to seqscan a table that occupies 350k > > pages, instead of pulling a couple thousand rows. I started running it > > with the seqscan and it's already taken way longer than it does if I > > disable seqscan. > > That was indeed the question. > > If it uses a seqscan when it ought not to do, then there's something > wrong with the statistics, or you haven't vacuum analysed correctly, > or your table needs vacuum full (is it really 350k pages, or is that > mostly dead space?), &c. -- all the usual bad-seqscan candidates. > > enable_seqscan=off is probably not a good strategy for any moderately > complicated query. If the planner were perfect, of course, you'd > never need it at all. Set statistics on the ID colum to 1000, vacuum analyze, and it's good to go now. Thanks for your help! -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
