| From: | <mike(at)linkify(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Trying to get postgres to use an index |
| Date: | 2004-11-06 22:01:25 |
| Message-ID: | 50156.12.134.204.65.1099778485.squirrel@mail.linkify.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Well, you're joining the entire two tables, so yes, the seq scan might
> be faster.
My mistake. When composing the email to state the problem, I accidentally
gave a wrong versionof the join query.
Here is the corrected version, which still has the sequential scan...
explain select notificationID from NOTIFICATION n, ITEM i where n.itemID
= i.itemID andi.projectID = 12;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash Join (cost=2237.54..15382.32 rows=271 width=44)
Hash Cond: ("outer".itemid = "inner".itemid)
-> Seq Scan on notification n (cost=0.00..12023.71 rows=223671 width=48)
-> Hash (cost=2235.31..2235.31 rows=895 width=4)
-> Index Scan using item_ix_item_4_idx on item i
(cost=0.00..2235.31 rows=895width=4)
Index Cond: (projectid = 12)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Franco Bruno Borghesi | 2004-11-06 22:12:16 | Re: Mass Import/Generate PKs |
| Previous Message | Ed L. | 2004-11-06 21:56:03 | Re: Mass Import/Generate PKs |