On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Ragnar wrote:
show us the output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE , along
with details about relevant columns, indexes, so that we
can give more concrete advice.
Better yet, post that to pgsql-performance, which is the most
appropriate list for this kind of thing.
--
Jim C. Na
On fös, 2006-06-16 at 11:39 +0530, surabhi.ahuja wrote:
[in response to Jim advising not to set random_page_cost=1]
> in that case, should i set
> enable_seqscan parameter to off at the time of starting postmaster?
that is unlikely to be a good stategy.
> because i have seen that even thou the
Title: Re: [GENERAL] B+ versus hash maps
in that case, should i set
enable_seqscan parameter to off at the time
of starting postmaster?
because i have seen that even thou the
index exists it still goes for seq scan
thanks
surabhi
From: Jim Nasby
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Fri
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:07 AM, surabhi.ahuja wrote:
is there any way of specifying wht type of index i want, say hash
maps instead of the B+ trees.
someone told me that in the case where duplicates occur(on the
indexed field), hash map are better than B+ trees.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/
