Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan

On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:45:54PM -0500, Aaron Bono wrote:

> Then I inserted 150 more records in the slow schema and pow - it started
> working like the fast schema.
>
> So my conclusion is that the function is being treated as volatile even
> though it is stable because the number of records is small.

I don't think that's the issue. If this is dependent on the
number of records, then for some reason the way the data is
structured means that the planner thinks a seqscan's a better bet.
This is probably due to distribution of the values. You could try
increasing the stats sample, and see if that helps.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie