From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> |
Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index on timestamp field, and now() |
Date: | 2002-02-12 14:48:36 |
Message-ID: | 21253.1013525316@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> writes:
> webmailstation=> explain select * from queue where send_date > timestamp
> 'now';
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Seq Scan on queue (cost=0.00..10114.06 rows=80834 width=190)
>
> EXPLAIN
>
> queue | send_date | 0 | 8 | -1 |
> |
> |
> {"2001-12-27 21:58:24-05","2002-02-12 08:48:18.967111-05","2002-02-12
> 15:14:51.89063-05","2002-02-13 04:06:19.979181-05","2002-02-13
> 16:20:37.753221-05","2002-02-14 12:03:09.714262-05","2002-02-15
> 15:15:58.04151-05","2002-02-17 11:06:16.964311-05","2002-02-20
> 08:40:57.795043-05","2002-03-12 07:25:46-05","2003-10-28 14:58:58-05"}
> | -0.359735
According to this histogram, 90% of your table has send_date in the
future. Accordingly, seqscan is the right plan for the above query.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-12 14:57:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Feature enhancement request : use of libgda in |
Previous Message | Darren Ferguson | 2002-02-12 14:24:24 | Re: index use again and again |