Re: Avoiding a seq scan on a table.

From: "Sean Davis" <sdavis2(at)mail(dot)nih(dot)gov>
To: LWATCDR <lwatcdr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Avoiding a seq scan on a table.
Date: 2008-01-14 16:54:30
Message-ID: 264855a00801140854q775d48d9p85611b5714db830d@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

On Jan 14, 2008 11:45 AM, LWATCDR <lwatcdr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Thanks would you suggest a btree or a hash? My guess would a hash
> since it uses an =.
>

You can pretty much ignore hash indexes in Postgres. They are, in nearly
every case (every case that I know of), slower than btree. Just make the
indexes using the default indexing scheme. Again, do not forget to analyze
the table after creating the indexes.

Sean

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brian Hurt 2008-01-14 17:03:58 Re: Avoiding a seq scan on a table.
Previous Message LWATCDR 2008-01-14 16:45:53 Re: Avoiding a seq scan on a table.