On 8 June 2012 11:58, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Did you take caching of table data in the buffer cache or the filesystem
> cache into account? Did you run your tests several times in a row and
> were the actual execution times consistent?
Yes, and yes.
>> Would tweaking enable_seqscan and other pl
Ivan Voras wrote:
> I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
> code directly (outside a function), this is the "normal", default
plan:
>
> http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
>
> and this is the plain with enable_seqscan turned off:
>
> http://explain.depesz.com/
2012/5/27 Ivan Voras :
> On 27 May 2012 05:28, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> 2012/5/26 Ivan Voras :
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
>>> code directly (outside a function), this is the "normal", default plan:
>>>
>>> http://explain.depe
On 27 May 2012 05:28, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> 2012/5/26 Ivan Voras :
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
>> code directly (outside a function), this is the "normal", default plan:
>>
>> http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
>>
>> and thi
Hello
2012/5/26 Ivan Voras :
> Hello,
>
> I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
> code directly (outside a function), this is the "normal", default plan:
>
> http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
>
> and this is the plain with enable_seqscan turned off:
>
> http:/
