Yes, I have just about tried every combination of vacuum on the database. Just to make 100% sure. Tom Lane wrote: > Christo Du Preez <christo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On my laptop the explain analyze looks like this: >> > > >> "Index Scan using fki_layertype_parentid on layertype (cost=0.00..8.27 >> rows=1 width=109)" >> " Index Cond: (parentid = 300)" >> > > OK ... > > >> and on the problem server: >> > > >> "Seq Scan on layertype (cost=0.00..20.39 rows=655 width=110)" >> " Filter: (parentid = 300)" >> > > The server thinks that every row of the table matches the WHERE clause. > That being the case, it's making the right choice to use a seqscan. > The question is why is the rows estimate so far off? Have you ANALYZEd > the table lately? > > regards, tom lane > > > -- Christo Du Preez Senior Software Engineer Mecola IT Mobile: +27 [0]83 326 8087 Skype: christodupreez Website: http://www.locateandtrade.co.za
