Re: Seq. scan when using comparison operators, why? [netaktiv.com #150]

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)netaktiv(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)netaktiv(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Seq. scan when using comparison operators, why? [netaktiv.com #150]
Date: 2002-04-08 14:19:02
Message-ID: 20020408141902.GA12745@staff.netaktiv.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:15:05AM -0400,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:

> That is the default behavior in the absence of any VACUUM ANALYZE
...
> An indexscan is generally not a win for scanning more than a few
> percent of a table.

You're right, after the VACUUM ANALYZE, both queries use sequential
scan :-)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-08 14:26:30 Re: Seq. scan when using comparison operators, why? [netaktiv.com #150]
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-08 14:18:23 Re: numeric test on RiscPC