Re: postgresql does seqscan instead of using an existing index

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:31PM +0200, Jan Weerts wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I hope this is the right list for this question, if not, please
> direct me to the appropriate one. This mail is rather longish, so
> thanks in advance to all, who dare to read :-).

Just off the top of my head:

You don't say how big the table is. Maybe a seqscan is right. Does
the explain output contain the right estimate of how many rows get
returned? Have you ANALYSEd?

Also, I saw a NOT IN in your query. This is a well-known drag on
performance in PostgreSQL. Use NOT EXISTS instead.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110