3:08 PM
To: Richard Huxton
Cc: David Price; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Optimizer Selecting Incorrect Index
Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Things to check:
> 1. postgresql.conf settings match - different costs could cause this
> 2. statistics on t
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
These queries are different. The first returns 687 rows and the second
713 rows.
The 687 and 713 are the number of rows in the plan, not the number of rows
the queries return.
D'OH! Thanks Dennis
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Lt
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > Index Scan using trptserc on trans (cost=0.00..465.10 rows=44 width=118)
> >Index Cond: (trn_patno = 19)
> >Filter: ((trn_old_date >= '1994-08-23'::date) AND (trn_old_date <=
> > '2004-08-23'::date) AND (trn_bill_inc = 'B'::bpchar))
> >
Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Things to check:
> 1. postgresql.conf settings match - different costs could cause this
> 2. statistics on the two columns (trn_patno,trn_old_date) - if they
> differ considerably between systems that would also explain it.
The different estimated row
David Price wrote:
I have 2 servers both with the exact same data, the same O.S., the same
version of Postgres (7.4.5) and the exact same db schema's (one production
server, one development server). One server is using the correct index for
SQL queries resulting in extremely slow performance, the
I have 2 servers both with the exact same data, the same O.S., the same
version of Postgres (7.4.5) and the exact same db schema's (one production
server, one development server). One server is using the correct index for
SQL queries resulting in extremely slow performance, the other server is
pro
