Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index?

Most likely your table has a SERIAL PRIMARY KEY in it, in this case, do
the following :

my_limit = select primary_key_field from billing where timestamp >
(now()-60)::timestamp ORDER BY timestamp ASC LIMIT 1;

then

SELECT count(*) FROM billing WHERE primary_key_field>=my_limit;

I don't know if it'll work better, but you can try.

When you insert records in the table, they are appended at the end, so
this type of recent records query only requires reading the tail of the
table. It should be fast if planned correctly.

> Strangely enough, I don't find that result surprising.
>
> if the vast bulk of the data is in the past and now()-60 represents a
> very small slice of the data
> we might expect that using an index is optimal, but there could be many
> reasons why it doesn't get
> used.
>
> AFAIK postgres doesn't peek at values used in a query when optimizing so
> any query with a ">" type
> condition is gonna have a seq scan as the plan since the best guess is
> that you are gonna match
> 50% of the table. That's one possible explanation.
>
> Another is that if the condition data types don't match then an indes
> won't be used you could try:
>
> select count(*) from billing where timestamp > (now()-60)::timestamp
>
> Might make a difference, I dunno, it's a case of testing amd seing what
> happens.
>
> You could try lowering the random page cost, it might help, but I don't
> like your chances.
>
> If your problem is that you want to access the most recent data from a
> large table with fast
> response, then you could consider:
>
> 1. a "recent" index. If the data is within the "recent" time from set a
> flag to true, other wise
> null. Reset the flags periodically. Nulls aren't indexed so the
> selectivity of such an index is
> much higher. Can work wonders.
>
> 2, duplicate recent data in another table that is purged when data
> passes the age limit. This is
> basic archiving.
>
> Something like that. Hopefully someone with more knowlege of the
> optimaizer will have a brighter
> suggestion for you.
>
> What version are you using by the way?
> Regards
> Mr Pink
> --- Jack Kerkhof <jack(dot)kerkhof(at)guest-tek(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> The query:
>> select count(*) from billing where timestamp > now()-60
>>
>> should obviously use the index
>>
>> CREATE INDEX billing_timestamp_idx ON billing USING btree
>> ("timestamp"
>> timestamp_ops);
>>
>> on a table with 1400000 rows.
>>
>> But it uses a Seq Scan. If I set enable_seqscan=no, it indicates a
>> queryplan
>> could not be calculated.
>>
>> Why does this simple query not use the timestamp index, and how can I
>> get it
>> to?
>>
>> Thanks, Jack
>>
>> Jack Kerkhof
>> Research & Development
>> jack(dot)kerkhof(at)guest-tek(dot)com
>> www.guest-tek.com
>> 1.866.509.1010 3480
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Guest-Tek is a leading provider of broadband technology solutions
>> for
>> the hospitality industry. Guest-Tek's GlobalSuite�Ehigh-speed Internet
>> solution enables hotels to offer their guests the convenience of wired
>> and/or wireless broadband Internet access from guest rooms, meeting
>> rooms
>> and public areas.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>