I posted about this a couple days ago on dspam-dev...
I am using DSpam with PostgreSQL, and like you discovered the horrible
performance. The reason is because the default PostgreSQL query planner
settings determine that a sequence scan will be more efficient than an
index scan, which is wrong.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:14:18PM +0100, Evilio del Rio wrote:
I have installed the dspam filter
(http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam) on our mail server
(RedHat 7.3 Linux with sendmail 8.13 and procmail). I have ~300 users
with a quite low traffic of 4000 messages/day. So it's a
Casey Allen Shobe wrote the following on 11/27/04 03:11 :
I posted about this a couple days ago on dspam-dev...
I am using DSpam with PostgreSQL, and like you discovered the horrible
performance. The reason is because the default PostgreSQL query planner
settings determine that a sequence scan
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casey Allen
Shobe) wrote:
I posted about this a couple days ago on dspam-dev...
I am using DSpam with PostgreSQL, and like you discovered the horrible
performance. The reason is because the default PostgreSQL query planner