Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: Bug in optimizer

From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: bamby(at)marka(dot)net(dot)ua, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: Bug in optimizer
Date: 1999-03-18 18:42:12
Message-ID: 36F14904.87062929@krs.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Let me tell you why I don't think this is a bug. The optimizer will
> choose ordered results over unordered results if the costs are the same.
> In this case, the cost of the query is zero, so it chose to use the
> index because the index produces an ordered result.
>
> This works well for un-vacuumed tables, because it thinks everything is
> zero cost, and chooses the index.

Agreed, this is ok as long as

vac=> create table table1 (field1 int);
CREATE
vac=> insert into table1 values (1);
INSERT 1583349 1
vac=> create index i_table1__field1 on table1 (field1);
CREATE
vac=> explain select * from table1 where field1 = 1;
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:

Seq Scan on table1 (cost=1.03 size=1 width=4)

- SeqScan is used for small tables.

So, only bug reported is left.

Vadim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-03-18 18:46:16 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: Bug in optimizer
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-03-18 18:36:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: Bug in optimizer

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-03-18 18:46:16 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: Bug in optimizer
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-03-18 18:36:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: Bug in optimizer