<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PostgreSQL And SELECT DISTINCT On Large Tables</title>
	<link>http://blog.charcoalphile.com/2009/01/22/postgresql-and-select-distinct-on-large-tables/</link>
	<description>On Databases, Recovery, Tech</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://blog.charcoalphile.com/2009/01/22/postgresql-and-select-distinct-on-large-tables/#comment-2485</link>
		<author>admin</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.charcoalphile.com/2009/01/22/postgresql-and-select-distinct-on-large-tables/#comment-2485</guid>
		<description>Yeah, the problem was PostgreSQL's cost estimate was way off, so it never attempted an index scan. After forcing it to use an index, and running VACUUM ANALYZE, it started choosing an index scan over a seqscan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, the problem was PostgreSQL&#8217;s cost estimate was way off, so it never attempted an index scan. After forcing it to use an index, and running VACUUM ANALYZE, it started choosing an index scan over a seqscan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan Pavlov</title>
		<link>http://blog.charcoalphile.com/2009/01/22/postgresql-and-select-distinct-on-large-tables/#comment-2483</link>
		<author>Ivan Pavlov</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.charcoalphile.com/2009/01/22/postgresql-and-select-distinct-on-large-tables/#comment-2483</guid>
		<description>Hmph. Have you run VACUUM ANALYZE on this table before comparing query plans?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmph. Have you run VACUUM ANALYZE on this table before comparing query plans?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
