From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index on a NULL-value |
Date: | 2005-05-31 04:08:01 |
Message-ID: | 20050531040801.GA21334@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:31:58 +0800,
Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com> wrote:
> [Tobias Brox]
> > test=# set enable_seqscan=off;
>
> [Bruno Wolff III - Mon at 10:16:53PM -0500]
> > It isn't surprising that an index wasn't used since a sequential scan is
> > going to be faster in your test case.
> >
> > If you want to test this out, you to want use realistically sized tables.
>
> Wrong. In this case I was not wondering about the planners choise of not
> using the index, but the fact that the planner could not find the index at
> all. Reproducing it on a simple table in a test environment was a valid
> strategy to solve this specific problem.
I missed that you turned sequential scans off for your test.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-31 04:18:33 | Re: Index on a NULL-value |
Previous Message | Tobias Brox | 2005-05-31 03:45:29 | Re: Index on a NULL-value |