Re: Indexes not used

From: "D(dot) Duccini" <duccini(at)backpack(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Olbersen <dave(at)slickness(dot)org>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Indexes not used
Date: 2001-03-16 16:18:45
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.03.10103161014500.5637-100000@ra.bpsi.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice


> If the system needs to fetch more than a small percentage of the
> records, then seqscan *will* be faster. The issue you are dealing
> with seems to be misestimation of the retrieval percentage for this
> particular query, causing the planner to guess wrong about which
> kind of plan to use.

no worries...i'll try building a subset of the data and see if there is
some "threshhold" value

or...maybe its time i actually contributed some code to the project :)

i built an OO database engine a few years ago (in objective-c) that used a
modified N-tree approach to indicies that massively accelerated the
retrieval of a lot of "highly similar" data items

-duck

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
david(at)backpack(dot)com BackPack Software, Inc. www.backpack.com
+1 651.645.7550 voice "Life is an Adventure.
+1 651.645.9798 fax Don't forget your BackPack!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Randy Hall 2001-03-16 17:11:21 Re: pg_dump & BLOBs ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-16 16:09:22 Re: Indexes not used