On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:31:58 +0800,
Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com> wrote:
> [Tobias Brox]
> > test=# set enable_seqscan=off;
> [Bruno Wolff III - Mon at 10:16:53PM -0500]
> > It isn't surprising that an index wasn't used since a sequential scan is
> > going to be faster in your test case.
> > If you want to test this out, you to want use realistically sized tables.
> Wrong. In this case I was not wondering about the planners choise of not
> using the index, but the fact that the planner could not find the index at
> all. Reproducing it on a simple table in a test environment was a valid
> strategy to solve this specific problem.
I missed that you turned sequential scans off for your test.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-05-31 04:18:33|
|Subject: Re: Index on a NULL-value |
|Previous:||From: Tobias Brox||Date: 2005-05-31 03:45:29|
|Subject: Re: Index on a NULL-value|