Re: index v. seqscan for certain values

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Jeremy Dunn <jdunn(at)autorevenue(dot)com>
Cc: 'Postgresql Performance' <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: index v. seqscan for certain values
Date: 2004-04-12 19:55:52
Message-ID: 20040412195552.GA24133@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 15:05:02 -0400,
Jeremy Dunn <jdunn(at)autorevenue(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Agreed. However, given that count(*) is a question that can be answered
> _solely_ using the index (without reference to the actual data blocks),
> I'd expect that the break-even point would be considerably higher than
> the < 3% (~38,000 / ~1.3M) I'm currently getting. Does PG not use
> solely the index in this situation??

That isn't true. In order to check visibility you need to look at the
data blocks.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-04-12 20:54:47 Re: Re: Index Backward Scan fast / Index Scan slow ! (Modifié par Pailloncy Jean-Gérard)
Previous Message Jeremy Dunn 2004-04-12 19:05:02 Re: index v. seqscan for certain values