Re: test / live environment, major performance difference

Yes, I have just about tried every combination of vacuum on the
database. Just to make 100% sure.

Tom Lane wrote:
> Christo Du Preez <christo@mecola.com> writes:
>
>> On my laptop the explain analyze looks like this:
>>
>
>
>> "Index Scan using fki_layertype_parentid on layertype  (cost=0.00..8.27
>> rows=1 width=109)"
>> "  Index Cond: (parentid = 300)"
>>
>
> OK ...
>
>
>> and on the problem server:
>>
>
>
>> "Seq Scan on layertype  (cost=0.00..20.39 rows=655 width=110)"
>> "  Filter: (parentid = 300)"
>>
>
> The server thinks that every row of the table matches the WHERE clause.
> That being the case, it's making the right choice to use a seqscan.
> The question is why is the rows estimate so far off?  Have you ANALYZEd
> the table lately?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
>
>

--
Christo Du Preez

Senior Software Engineer
Mecola IT
Mobile:     +27 [0]83 326 8087
Skype:     christodupreez
Website: http://www.locateandtrade.co.za