Re: index usage

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrei Ivanov <andrei(dot)ivanov(at)ines(dot)ro>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: index usage
Date: 2003-10-22 19:24:52
Message-ID: 18165.1066850692@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

Andrei Ivanov <andrei(dot)ivanov(at)ines(dot)ro> writes:
> The table contains ~140 rows and I've ran vacuum full analyze.

On a table that small, a seqscan is usually preferable because it takes
less I/O. In your test case the index pages were evidently already in
RAM, so that no additional I/O was actually needed to consult the index
--- but in a production situation you'd not be able to count on that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • index usage at 2003-10-22 18:51:57 from Andrei Ivanov

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-10-22 19:39:58 Re: Expressional Indexes
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-10-22 19:20:44 Re: Functional index problems. (Was: Many joins: monthly summaries S-L--O--W)