On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 at 22:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, to put the rubber to the road: if you force an indexscan by
> doing "set enable_seqscan = off", does it get faster or slower?
> (EXPLAIN ANALYZE would be useful here.)
I've just found a case where forcing indexscans results in much higher
speed. On the the 350000 rows table mentioned in my other post after a
"VACUUM FULL ANALYZE":
max=# set enable_seqscan to false;
max=# EXPLAIN analyze
SELECT count(foo.id) FROM foo, bar
WHERE foo.id = bar.ref2foo;
Aggregate (cost=27513.65..27513.65 rows=1 width=8)
(actual time=652.38..652.38 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Merge Join
(cost=0.00..27417.57 rows=38431 width=8)
(actual time=0.06..603.02 rows=38431 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using foo_pkey on foo
(cost=0.00..25153.18 rows=352072 width=4)
(actual time=0.03..157.57 rows=38432 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using idx_bar_ref2foo on bar
(cost=0.00..807.74 rows=38431 width=4)
(actual time=0.02..170.25 rows=38431 loops=1)
Total runtime: 652.58 msec
^^^^^^^^^^^
max=# set enable_seqscan to true;
max=# EXPLAIN analyze
SELECT count(foo.id) FROM foo, bar
WHERE foo.id = bar.ref2foo;
Aggregate
(cost=18560.65..18560.65 rows=1 width=8)
(actual time=4951.57..4951.57 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Hash Join
(cost=911.39..18464.58 rows=38431 width=8)
(actual time=653.26..4905.37 rows=38431 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on foo
(cost=0.00..9251.72 rows=352072 width=4)
(actual time=0.02..769.60 rows=352072 loops=1)
-> Hash
(cost=683.31..683.31 rows=38431 width=4)
(actual time=140.60..140.60 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on bar
(cost=0.00..683.31 rows=38431 width=4)
(actual time=0.02..78.57 rows=38431 loops=1)
Total runtime: 4951.70 msec
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've reproduced that several times. Even on a newly started postmaster
the query takes less than 2.5 seconds with seqscans swited off.
cu
Reinhard
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
