From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simple Join |
Date: | 2005-12-14 22:47:03 |
Message-ID: | 7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm running 8.1 installed from source on a Debian Sarge server. I have a
> simple query that I believe I've placed the indexes correctly for, and I
> still end up with a seq scan. It makes sense, kinda, but it should be able
> to use the index to gather the right values.
I continue to marvel at how many people think that if it's not using an
index it must ipso facto be a bad plan ...
That plan looks perfectly fine to me. You could try forcing some other
choices by fooling with the planner enable switches (eg set
enable_seqscan = off) but I doubt you'll find much improvement. There
are too many rows being pulled from ordered_products to make an index
nestloop a good idea.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2005-12-14 23:12:56 | Re: Simple Join |
Previous Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2005-12-14 22:39:27 | Re: Auto-tuning a VIEW? |