On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:27 -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > Is there something wrong with: > set enable_seqscan = off > ? Nothing wrong with enable_seqscan = off except it is all or nothing type of thing... if you want the big table to never use seqscan, but a medium table which is joined in should use it, then what you do ? And setting enable_seqscan = off will actually not mean the planner can't use a sequential scan for the query if no other alternative exist. In any case it doesn't mean "please throw an error if you can't do this without a sequential scan". In fact an even more useful option would be to ask the planner to throw error if the expected cost exceeds a certain threshold... Cheers, Csaba. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
