Why does it not use the index?

From: Philip Greer <philip(at)tildesoftware(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Why does it not use the index?
Date: 2003-07-21 17:06:07
Message-ID: 20030721170607.GA18568@tildesoftware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

This one is irritating. Here's some psql output:

================================================================================
dumps=# \d fal_profdel
Table "fal_profdel"
Attribute | Type | Modifier
-----------+--------------------------+----------
sid | character(4) | not null
card_num | character(19) | not null
date_del | timestamp with time zone |
filename | character varying(30) |
Indices: fal_prfdel_cn,
fal_prfdel_date,
fal_prfdel_pk

dumps=# \d fal_prfdel_cn
Index "fal_prfdel_cn"
Attribute | Type
-----------+---------------
card_num | character(19)
unique btree

dumps=# explain select card_num from fal_profdel where card_num = 'removed_for_privacy';
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:

Seq Scan on fal_profdel (cost=0.00..120546.39 rows=46649 width=12)

EXPLAIN
================================================================================

Now, why the heck is the select query not using the index? I've tried it by having an exact 19 character card_num as well - still explains as a 'Seq Scan' (tablespace scan) - and each query takes up to 37 seconds (thus confirming that it is indeed doing scans and not using the index).

I've tried dropping and re-creating the indexes, still it explains as tablespace scans.

I am running postgresql 7.1.3 - a bit old, I know, but I have had no reason to upgrade just yet.

By the way, the fal_profdel table has 4,664,867 rows in it currently - thus I really don't want full table scans!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PG.. philip(at)tildesoftware(dot)com
Law of probable dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be
evenly distributed.

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-07-21 17:07:18 Re: Incomprehensible behaviour of a foreign key.
Previous Message Chris Gamache 2003-07-21 17:05:40 pg_dump dies on a renamed sequence... (7.2)