Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Your suggestion about the pet_state index was right on. I tried
>> "Analyze" on it, but still got the same bad estimate. However, I then
>> used "reindex" on that index, and that fixed the estimate accuracy,
>> which made the query r
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:07:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your suggestion about the pet_state index was right on. I tried
> > "Analyze" on it, but still got the same bad estimate. However, I then
> > used "reindex" on that index, and that fixed the
Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your suggestion about the pet_state index was right on. I tried
> "Analyze" on it, but still got the same bad estimate. However, I then
> used "reindex" on that index, and that fixed the estimate accuracy,
> which made the query run faster!
No, the es
