Re: Index not used - now me

From: Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Christoph Haller <ch(at)rodos(dot)fzk(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-sql (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index not used - now me
Date: 2004-02-09 17:27:48
Message-ID: 20040209172748.A12934@bacon
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On 09/02/2004 15:02 Christoph Haller wrote:
> [snip]
> Thanks for your reply so far, but there is one thing I still don't
> understand.
> You wrote
> It was disabling seqscan that
> was forcing an index scan to appear to be the least costly operation.
>
> Why appear? If the Index Scan has a Total runtime: 2.46 msec and the Seq
> Scan
> a Total runtime: 46.19 msec, then the Index Scan is much faster.
> Or am I completely off the track reading the explain analyze output?

No, I think it's me who's not reading the output correctly :( I didn't
look closely enough to spot the run time difference. How many rows are
there in the table?

--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Gibson 2004-02-09 17:42:25 Re: Implementation of a bag pattern using rules
Previous Message Mark Gibson 2004-02-09 17:24:05 Re: Implementation of a bag pattern using rules