From: | Bjørn T Johansen <btj(at)havleik(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan of table? |
Date: | 2003-09-05 13:23:24 |
Message-ID: | 1062768204.11199.23.camel@pennywise.havleik.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 12:07, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Friday 05 September 2003 09:47, Bjorn T Johansen wrote:
> > I think I have found out why.. I have a where clause on a ID field but it
> > seems like I need to cast this integer to the same integer as the field is
> > defined in the table, else it will do a tablescan.
> >
> > Is this assumtion correct? And if it is, do I then need to change all my
> > sql's to cast the where clause where I just have a number (eg where field
> > = 1) to force the planner to use index scan instead of seq scan?
>
> PG's parser will assume an explicit number is an int4 - if you need an int8
> etc you'll need to cast it, yes.
> You should find plenty of discussion of why in the archives, but the short
> reason is that PG's type structure is quite flexible which means it can't
> afford to make too many assumptions.
Oki, I am using both int2 and int8 as well, so that explains it...
Thanks!
BTJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Wegner | 2003-09-05 13:26:18 | Re: How can I set postmaster as a service |
Previous Message | stephane parenton | 2003-09-05 13:11:37 | unique heritage |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan Bartlett | 2003-09-05 14:39:49 | Re: Seq scan of table? |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2003-09-05 10:07:12 | Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan of table? |