Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: FW: Index usage

From: "gnari" <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is>
To: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <edwin(at)bluebamboo(dot)ph>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FW: Index usage
Date: 2004-12-01 08:24:59
Message-ID: 004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
From: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <edwin(at)bluebamboo(dot)ph>


> Thanks but whatever it does, it didn't work. :

> Do you think upgrading will fix this problem?

are you sure there is a problem here to solve ?

> Seq Scan on chatlogs  (cost=0.00..27252.86 rows=271882 width=212) (actual
> time=12.24..13419.36 rows=257137 loops=1)

you see that the actual rowcount matches the estimate,
so the planner is not being misled by wrong statistics.
you realize that an indexscan is not allways faster than
sequential scan unless the number of rows are a small
percentage of the total number of rows

did you try to add a 'order by date' clause to your query ?

gnari




In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Rodrigo CarvalhaesDate: 2004-12-01 11:16:58
Subject: pg_restore taking 4 hours!
Previous:From: Andrew McMillanDate: 2004-12-01 08:23:30
Subject: Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group