Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan

From: "chris smith" <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Date: 2006-04-02 00:50:44
Message-ID: 3c1395330604011650r61c793a7td3e8be58ab023c7b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 4/2/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:23:37AM +1000, chris smith wrote:
> > On 4/1/06, Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Hi Jim,
> > >
> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by the correlation of category_id?
> >
> > It means how many distinct values does it have (at least that's my
> > understanding of it ;) ).
>
> Your understanding is wrong. :) What you're discussing is n_distinct.

Geez, I'm going well this week ;)

Thanks for the detailed info.

--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message chris smith 2006-04-02 01:32:12 Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2006-04-01 19:23:20 Re: [Solved] Slow performance on Windows .NET and OleDb