On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:03:52 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Try reducing random_page_cost
With index scan cost being more than 25 * seq scan cost, I guess that
-
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:07:35 +0200, Andre Schubert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Traffic data are inserted every 5 minutes with the actual datetime
of the transaction, thatswhy the table should be physically order by time_stamp.
So I'd expect a correlation of nearly 1. Why do your statistics show
a
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:43:01 +0200
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:07:35 +0200, Andre Schubert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Traffic data are inserted every 5 minutes with the actual datetime
of the transaction, thatswhy the table should be physically order by
Andre Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i think i need a little help with a problem with pg_statistic.
Try reducing random_page_cost --- although you'd be foolish to set it on
the basis of just a single test query. Experiment with a few different
tables, and keep in mind that repeated tests
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Try reducing random_page_cost
With index scan cost being more than 25 * seq scan cost, I guess that
- all other things held equal - even random_page_cost = 1 wouldn't
help.
Oh,
