Re: Yet again on indices...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)idealx(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, sdinot(at)idealx(dot)com, dbarth(at)idealx(dot)com
Subject: Re: Yet again on indices...
Date: 2002-02-27 15:18:40
Message-ID: 22262.1014823120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)idealx(dot)com> writes:
> EXPLAIN SELECT t12_bskid, t12_pnb, t12_lne, t12_tck
> FROM T12_20011231
> WHERE t12_bskid >= 1
> ORDER BY t12_bskid, t12_pnb, t12_tck, t12_lne;

> Sort (cost=3006.13..3006.13 rows=25693 width=46)
> -> Seq Scan on t12_20011231 (cost=0.00..1124.20 rows=25693 width=46)

> => Uh? Seq scan cheaper than index???

For that kind of query, very probably. How much of the table is
actually selected by "WHERE t12_bskid >= 1"?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2002-02-27 15:21:27 Re: Refactoring of command.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-02-27 15:13:35 Re: Refactoring of command.c