From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
Cc: | psql(at)elbrief(dot)de, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: explain and index scan |
Date: | 2012-02-27 16:26:25 |
Message-ID: | 14493.1330359985@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> writes:
> Andreas wrote:
>> Both select where shown as 'Index Scan'. But the second select is not
> a real index scan,
> A full scan of the index is also an index scan.
Yes. In particular it won't visit the heap for rows that don't satisfy
the index condition. So as long as the index is a good deal smaller
than the heap, this sort of plan is entirely sensible.
> I think that your example is pathological, and the only way I could
> reproduce it is by setting enable_seqscan=off.
I'm thinking he's got random_page_cost = 1.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James B. Byrne | 2012-02-27 16:51:11 | Having a problem with RoR-3.1.1 and Pg-9.1 |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2012-02-27 16:02:06 | Re: Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought |