From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Arshavir Grigorian <ag(at)m-cam(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index use |
Date: | 2004-11-19 20:09:31 |
Message-ID: | 14526.1100894971@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Arshavir Grigorian <ag(at)m-cam(dot)com> writes:
> I have a query that when run on similar tables in 2 different databases
> either uses the index on the column (primary key) in the where clause or
> does a full table scan. The structure of the tables is the same, except
> that the table where the index does not get used has an extra million
> rows (22mil vs 23mil).
I'd say you initialized the second database in a non-C locale. The
planner is clearly well aware that the seqscan is going to be expensive,
so the explanation has to be that it does not have a usable index available.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2004-11-19 20:23:15 | Re: When to bump up statistics? |
Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2004-11-19 20:00:06 | Re: index use |