| From: | "A(dot)Bhuvaneswaran" <bhuvan(at)symonds(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index is not used |
| Date: | 2003-12-20 06:12:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1071900746.1380.57.camel@Bhuvan.bksys.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
> Unsurprising. An inequality condition may require fetching many rows
> (the planner is estimating 336289 rows here...) and so an indexscan is
> not necessarily quicker. Have you compared actual runtimes with
> enable_seqscan on and off?
I did run with enable_seqscan off. You are right, the plan shows that
indexscan is not quicker. Here is the explain output.
On the other hand, i have calculated the actual runtime with
enable_seqscan on and off. The runtime is 617 secs & 623 secs
respectively. I have also attached the log details. Is there any way to
increase this speed?
regards,
bhuvaneswaran
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| explain.1.txt | text/plain | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | A.Bhuvaneswaran | 2003-12-20 06:18:46 | Re: pg_dump vs pg_dumpall - small database cluster, |
| Previous Message | C. Bensend | 2003-12-20 05:51:06 | pg_dump vs pg_dumpall - small database cluster, complete recovery method needed |