Thread
-
Answering my own question
gerry.smit@lombard.ca — 2002-05-15T17:37:56Z
I found, on http://www.argudo.org/postgresql/soft-tuning-10.html my answer. (Excellent site btw) What I need to do is prefix my SELECT statements for this table with the statement : SET enable_seqscan='false'; as in : SET enable_seqscan='false';SELECT * FROM pol_xref_d WHERE policy_no=1200079 ORDER BY sequence; This change makes the response sub-second , a great improvement over the 11+ seconds we're currently experiencing. I'ld love any explanation of why the Query plan was going sequential versus indexed. Gerry
-
Re: Answering my own question
Manuel Sugawara <masm@fciencias.unam.mx> — 2002-05-15T17:45:05Z
gerry.smit@lombard.ca writes: > I'ld love any explanation of why the Query plan was going sequential > versus indexed. Sorry I miss the original thread, but the question is: Did you vacuum analyze'd your data? Regards, Manuel.
-
Re: Answering my own question
ghaverla@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca — 2002-05-15T17:50:24Z
On Wed, 15 May 2002 gerry.smit@lombard.ca wrote: > I found, on http://www.argudo.org/postgresql/soft-tuning-10.html my > answer. (Excellent site btw) What I need to do is prefix my SELECT > statements for this table with the statement : > > SET enable_seqscan='false'; > > as in : > > SET enable_seqscan='false';SELECT * FROM pol_xref_d WHERE policy_no=1200079 > ORDER BY sequence; Some else mentioned ANALYZE (or is it ANALYSE?). Anyway, I seem to remember reading someplace that with newer versions of PostgreSQL, when you used to VACUUM on a regular basis, you were supposed to change over to VACUUM ANALYSE (ANALYZE?) some (all?) of the time. My memory is fuzzy about this, so perhaps the docs will have something on this. Gord Matter Realisations http://www.materialisations.com/ Gordon Haverland, B.Sc. M.Eng. President 101 9504 182 St. NW Edmonton, AB, CA T5T 3A7 780/481-8019 ghaverla @ freenet.edmonton.ab.ca 780/993-1274 (cell)