On 12/30/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andy Colson <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 12/30/2015 2:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe something weird about the build you're using? What does
pg_config print?
[ output ]
No smoking gun there either.
It might be worthwhile to update to 9.3.10, just in case there is
something wonky about this particular build you've got. But I'm
starting to get the feeling that you may not get an answer short
of tracing through gincostestimate to see where it's going nuts.
regards, tom lane
The entire database is 78Gig, would you expect a "vacuum analyze" to fix
it? I never run it.
Cuz I started one, and its still going, but at this point right now it's
preferring indexed scans. So it seems fixed.
I'd ran: analyze jasperia.search
many times, before and after I'd emailed the list. I've rebuilt the
search table several times over, but never vacuumed it.
explain analyze
select *
from jasperia.search
where search_vec @@ to_tsquery_partial('213 E 13 ST N')
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitmap Heap Scan on search (cost=76.01..80.03 rows=1 width=73)
(actual time=62.803..62.804 rows=1 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (search_vec @@
to_tsquery((array_to_string('{213,E,13,ST,N}'::text[], ' & '::text) ||
':*'::text)))
-> Bitmap Index Scan on search_key (cost=0.00..76.01 rows=1
width=0) (actual time=62.797..62.797 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (search_vec @@
to_tsquery((array_to_string('{213,E,13,ST,N}'::text[], ' & '::text) ||
':*'::text)))
Total runtime: 62.869 ms
(* The vacuum analyze is still running *)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
