From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mario Ivankovits <mario(at)ops(dot)co(dot)at> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index not used if using IN or OR |
Date: | 2004-11-04 14:52:03 |
Message-ID: | 25181.1099579923@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mario Ivankovits <mario(at)ops(dot)co(dot)at> writes:
> After populating the table with 8920 records and "analyze" the scenario
> gets even worser:
> select * from tt where seckey = 1;
> Seq Scan on tt (cost=0.00..168.50 rows=1669 width=12) (actual
> time=0.000..15.000 rows=1784 loops=1)
> Filter: (seckey = 1)
> Total runtime: 31.000 ms
> Now also this simple query uses a "Seq Scan".
Which is exactly what it *should* do, considering that it is selecting
1784 out of 8920 records. Indexscans only win for small selectivities
--- the rule of thumb is that retrieving more than about 1% of the
records should use a seqscan.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2004-11-04 15:47:31 | Re: Anything to be gained from a 'Postgres Filesystem'? |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2004-11-04 14:02:17 | Re: preloading indexes |