On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Matthew Wakeling<matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is certainly doing a sequential scan. So are you saying that it will > start a sequential scan from a different part of the table each time, even > in the absence of other simultaneous sequential scans? Looks like I'm going > to have to remove the limit to get sensible results - I only added that to > make the query return in a sensible time for performance testing. > > Some trivial testing with "select * from location limit 10;" indicates that > it starts the sequential scan in the same place each time - but is this > different from the above query? Maybe it's because of this? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/runtime-config-compatible.html#GUC-SYNCHRONIZE-SEQSCANS ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
