| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Matching indexe for timestamp |
| Date: | 2017-01-09 23:53:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ5Nx5OANS1nhx-mEsvQa4nbLYJ8c3vQg_AgO7C7qxCbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> wrote:
>
> But in the query planner, at that point, Postgresql 9.6.1 seems not to use
> any index (single on dalle / alle field and combindex index on dalle+alle)
> but it use seqscan:
>
> Seq Scan on gruorari_tmp (cost=0.00..5.90 rows=290 width=68) (actual
> time=0.014..0.062 rows=290 loops=1)
> -> Hash (cost=164.06..164.06 rows=1
> width=29) (actual time=0.770..0.770 rows=1 loops=1)
>
>
Given a query with expected "rows=290" I am not surprised that it would
simply scan the entire relation. Especially since you have four columns in
your where clause and so any one index would be insufficient.
You sound as if you believe that any query that doesn't use an index is
flawed. That is not the case.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2017-01-10 00:09:00 | Re: Matching indexe for timestamp |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-01-09 23:50:57 | Re: R: Matching indexe for timestamp |