From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, brad-pgperf(at)duttonbros(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index usage |
Date: | 2004-04-28 16:41:40 |
Message-ID: | 424.1083170500@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> There are tons of hints that it works this way in how they're written, but
> nothing that just comes out and says that with pgsql's mvcc
> implementation, an index scan still has to hit the pages that contain the
> tuples, so often in pgsql a seq scan is a win where in other databases and
> index scan would have been a win?
> If not, where would I add it if I were going to write something up for the
> docs? Just wondering...
AFAIR the only place in the docs that mentions seqscan or indexscan at
all is the discussion of EXPLAIN in "Performance Tips". Perhaps a
suitably-enlarged version of that section could cover this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jie Liang | 2004-04-28 18:12:17 | 7.4.2 out of memory |
Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-04-28 15:40:08 | Re: index usage |