From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Edmund Dengler <edmundd(at)eSentire(dot)com> |
Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unable to use index? |
Date: | 2004-04-30 04:01:15 |
Message-ID: | 20319.1083297675@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Edmund Dengler <edmundd(at)eSentire(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm, interesting as I have that table clustered starting with the
> rep_component, so 'ps_probe' will definitely appear later in a sequential
> scan. So why does the <order by> force the use of the index?
It does not "force" anything, it simply alters the cost estimates. The
seqscan-based plan requires an extra sort step to meet the ORDER BY,
while the indexscan plan does not. In this particular scenario the
indexscan plan is estimated to beat seqscan+sort, but in other cases the
opposite decision might be made.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-30 04:34:39 | Re: TCP only listening on localhost??? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-30 03:33:18 | Re: postgresql idle |