Re: strange query plan

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: strange query plan
Date: 2001-04-08 11:50:44
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0104081349000.1236-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-general

Mario Weilguni writes:

> Now when I type:
> explain select min(id)from log;
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Aggregate (cost=45702.20..45702.20 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Seq Scan on log (cost=0.00..41978.36 rows=1489536 width=4)
>
> I don't understand why the index log_pkey is not used here. I guess it would
> be much cheaper to consult the index to get min(), max(), sum() and avg()
> instead of sequentially scanning ~500MB of data.

Since your query reads the entire "log" table, it is certainly better to
use a sequential scan in the case of sum() and avg(). A min() and max()
would theoretically not need to scan the entire table in the presence of
an index, but unfortunately this doesn't work yet.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2001-04-08 12:38:18 Re: Re: [GENERAL] Better Features document?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-04-08 11:15:37 Re: [GENERAL] Better Features document?

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2001-04-08 12:38:18 Re: Re: [GENERAL] Better Features document?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-04-08 11:15:37 Re: [GENERAL] Better Features document?