From: | <mike(dot)wertheim(at)linkify(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <joelstevenson(at)mac(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Trying to get postgres to use an index |
Date: | 2004-11-06 22:50:14 |
Message-ID: | 1726.12.134.204.65.1099781414.squirrel@mail.linkify.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> I'm not a SQL guru by any stretch but would a
> constrained sub-select be appropriate here?
> Well, you're joining the entire two tables, so yes, the seq scan might
> be faster.
My mistake! When composing the email to state the problem, I accidentally
gave a wrong version of the join query.
Here is the corrected version, which still has the sequential scan...
explain select notificationID from NOTIFICATION n, ITEM i where n.itemID
= i.itemID and i.projectID = 12;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Hash Join (cost=2237.54..15382.32 rows=271 width=44)
Hash Cond: ("outer".itemid = "inner".itemid)
-> Seq Scan on notification n (cost=0.00..12023.71 rows=223671
width=48)
-> Hash (cost=2235.31..2235.31 rows=895 width=4)
-> Index Scan using item_ix_item_4_idx on item i
(cost=0.00..2235.31 rows=895width=4)
Index Cond: (projectid = 12)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Uwe C. Schroeder | 2004-11-06 23:13:22 | SQL question |
Previous Message | Joel Stevenson | 2004-11-06 22:17:19 | Re: Trying to get postgres to use an index |