Re: Performance Problem Index Ignored, but why

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Thomas A(dot) Lowery" <tlowery(at)stlowery(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance Problem Index Ignored, but why
Date: 2002-05-22 04:26:35
Message-ID: 21113.1022041595@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

"Thomas A. Lowery" <tlowery(at)stlowery(dot)net> writes:
> Can I force the use of an index?

Try "set enable_seqscan = off". But on the basis of what you've shown,
it's not obvious that an indexscan will be faster. Is the planner's
estimate that 139654 rows will match f_state = 'PA' in the right
ballpark?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shreedhar 2002-05-22 14:02:17 Problem in 'User Securities' in postgres
Previous Message Thomas A. Lowery 2002-05-22 04:02:05 Performance Problem Index Ignored, but why