| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Prowel <tempest766(at)yahoo(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: is this a bug or do I not understand the query planner? | 
| Date: | 2005-11-03 23:59:27 | 
| Message-ID: | 200511040059.27965.peter_e@gmx.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs | 
Rob Prowel wrote:
> two almost identical queries: one searches for
> read in ('N','n')
> and the other searches for
> read in ('Y','y').
>
> the (explain) SQL statement says that one uses the
> index on the (read) field and the other does a
> sequential table scan.  Why!!!????  I can think of no
> logical reason for this behavior.
Imagine a table with one million 'Y' and one 'N'.  Searching for the 
first should not use an index, searching for the second should.  A 
similar case probably applies here.  I hope that is logical enough for 
you. :)
In general, if you disagree with a plan choice, you should provide 
evidence that the chosen plan is in practice worse then the one you 
would have preferred.
-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | venki | 2005-11-04 10:15:23 | how to install postgres 8.0.4 in RHEL4 | 
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-11-03 23:55:03 | Re: is this a bug or do I not understand the query planner? |