Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > production=*# explain analyse select * from boxes; > > QUERY PLAN > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Seq Scan on boxes (cost=0.00..990783.99 rows=6499 width=581) (actual time=6.514..4588.136 rows=3060 loops=1) > > Total runtime: 4588.729 ms > > (2 rows) > > That cost estimate seems pretty dang large for a table with only 6500 > rows. I suspect this table is horribly bloated, and the indexscan > manages to win because it's not visiting pages that contain only dead You're right as always ;-) A LOT of updates and dead rows and the table is bloated. (some rows contains more than 1MByte of TEXT and some rows updated once per second or so) > rows. Try VACUUM FULL, and if that makes things saner, re-examine > your autovacuum settings. I can't run a VACUUM FULL because of the workload, but i have decrease the fillfactor. Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889° -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
