-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
| Jeroen van Iddekinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|>>You could tweak with several settings to get it to do an index scan
|>>earlier, but these would probably break other queries. You don't need to
|>>tune for 100 rows, morelike 100k o
Matteo Beccati wrote:
Hi,
Yes , it was a bit to high (18) so a lowered it. It speeded up some
pages for about 5%.
18? The default is 4 if I can remember correctly. I wonder if your db
has ever seen an index scan ;)
I was expermenting how much some setting influence has on the perfomance
of som
Hi,
Yes , it was a bit to high (18) so a lowered it. It speeded up some
pages for about 5%.
18? The default is 4 if I can remember correctly. I wonder if your db
has ever seen an index scan ;)
Best regards
--
Matteo Beccati
http://phpadsnew.com/
http://phppgads.com/
---(e
Jeroen van Iddekinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You could tweak with several settings to get it to do an index scan
>> earlier, but these would probably break other queries. You don't need to
>> tune for 100 rows, morelike 100k or 100M.
> Which settings shoud I change for this?
I'd agree with
You should lower random_page_cost to make the planner choose an index
scan vs sequential scan.
Yes , it was a bit to high (18) so a lowered it. It speeded up some
pages for about 5%.
Reg. Jer
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscr
Jeroen van Iddekinge wrote:
You could tweak with several settings to get it to do an index scan
earlier, but these would probably break other queries. You don't need to
tune for 100 rows, morelike 100k or 100M.
Thanks for respone.
The index scan was a little bit faster for id=1 and faster for id=
Hi,
Thanks for respone.
The index scan was a little bit faster for id=1 and faster for id=99.
Which settings shoud I change for this? cpu_index_tuple_cost ,
cpu_operator_cost, cpu_tuple_cost?
You should lower random_page_cost to make the planner choose an index
scan vs sequential scan.
Best re
You could tweak with several settings to get it to do an index scan
earlier, but these would probably break other queries. You don't need to
tune for 100 rows, morelike 100k or 100M.
Thanks for respone.
The index scan was a little bit faster for id=1 and faster for id=99.
Which settings shoud I ch
Jeroen van Iddekinge wrote:
Hi,
I understand that when a table contains only a few rows it is better to
do a sequence scan than an index scan. But is this also for a table with
99 records?
...
explain select * from tblFolders where id=90;
QUERY PLAN
--
