| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Itai Zukerman <zukerman(at)math-hat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GiST, Not Using Index |
| Date: | 2003-02-27 20:51:42 |
| Message-ID: | 27896.1046379102@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Itai Zukerman <zukerman(at)math-hat(dot)com> writes:
> [...some definitions...]
Never leave out the "unimportant" stuff --- that's usually where you
went wrong ;-)
My guess is that you didn't supply a restriction selectivity estimator
for the ~>= operator. I forget what the default assumptions are with
no estimator, but they're probably not optimistic enough to prompt use
of an indexscan.
> [...insert 20000 rows into x...]
> Seq Scan on x (cost=0.00..2826.01 rows=24334 width=8)
> Filter: (z ~>= sig_in('{1,2,3}'::integer[]))
*How* many rows did you insert? The planner thinks 24334 will be
selected here ... one hopes the default restrictivity estimate is
less than 1.0, at least ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | dhoubrechts | 2003-02-27 21:07:53 | use of geometric types in select ? |
| Previous Message | Grignon Etienne | 2003-02-27 20:33:04 | Re: pgsql problem |