Alban Hertroys wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Alex Solovey wrote: >> The reduced database example has the same problem in EXPLAIN ANALYZE >> as production one, here: >> >> Seq Scan on bar (cost=0.00..393.07 rows=1 width=4) (actual >> time=0.098..3.561 rows=24 loops=1) > > Hang on... You prefer sequential scans because indexes make your > database too slow, but you don't want a sequential scan now? What kind > of solution do you expect then? An oracle maybe? It sounds to me like the issue is with *multiple* sequential scans inside a nested loop instead of the single sequential scan expected. The quoted explain line reflects a claimed cost misestimation, rather than being a claim that sequential scans in general are not desired. > You will need an index if this query is too slow for you, or you will > have to live with the slowness of this query. Pick one ;) He's already noted that it's preferable to avoid adding indexes due to insert/update performance issues. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
