From: | Adam Kavan <akavan(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Carlos Moreno <moreno(at)mochima(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Odd behaviour -- Index scan vs. seq. scan |
Date: | 2003-09-15 22:58:20 |
Message-ID: | 5.2.1.1.0.20030915175520.0180c9b0@pop.central.cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> explain delete from game where gameid = 1000;
> Index Scan using game_pkey on game (cost=0.00..3.14 rows=1 width=6)
>
> explain delete from game where gameid < 1000;
> Seq Scan on game (cost=0.00..4779.50 rows=200420 width=6)
>
> explain delete from game where gameid between 1000 and 2000;
> Index Scan using game_pkey on game (cost=0.00..3.15 rows=1 width=6)
>
>
>How's that possible? Is it purposely done like this, or
>is it a bug? (BTW, Postgres version is 7.2.3)
Postgres thinks that for the = line there will only be 1 row so t uses an
index scan. Same thing for the between. However it thinks that there are
200420 rows below 1000 and decides a seq scan would be faster. You can run
EXPLAIN ANALYZE to see if its guesses are correct. You can also try SET
enable_seqscan = FALSE; to see if it is faster doing an index scan. If it
is faster to do an index scan edit your postgres.conf file and lower the
cost for a random tuple, etc.
--- Adam Kavan
--- akavan(at)cox(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-09-15 23:04:08 | Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-09-15 22:54:40 | Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of |