On 1/30/12 12:59 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > <alessandro@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hm. Well, it looks like setting enable_seqscan=false is session specific, so >> it seems like I can use it with this query alone; but it sounds like even if >> that works, it's a bad practice. (Is that true?) > > Yep The issue with that is that the enable_seqscan setting is not limited to that one table in that query, and won't change over time. So by all means use it as a hotfix right now, but it's not a long-term solution to your problem. > >> My effective_cache_size is 1530000kB That seems appropriate for the Ronin; I'll test one out and see what random_page_cost is set to as well, possibly Heroku needs to adjust the basic template for the Ronin. For Heroku, we want to favor index scans a bit more than you would on regular hardware because the underlying storage is Amazon, which has good seeks but crap throughput. You can do "SHOW random_page_cost" yourself right now, too. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
