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 01:32:12
Message-ID: 3c1395330604011732n4cd523c3gf7c1e4c346630aad@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 4/2/06, chris smith <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

<rant>
It'd be nice if the database developers agreed on what terms meant.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/myisam-index-statistics.html

The SHOW INDEX statement displays a cardinality value based on N/S,
where N is the number of rows in the table and S is the average value
group size. That ratio yields an approximate number of value groups in
the table.
</rant>

A work colleague found that information a few weeks ago so that's
where my misunderstanding came from - if I'm reading that right they
use n_distinct as their "cardinality" basis.. then again I could be
reading that completely wrong too.

I believe postgres (because it's a lot more standards compliant).. but
sheesh - what a difference!

This week's task - stop reading mysql documentation.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-04-02 04:26:45 Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Previous Message chris smith 2006-04-02 00:50:44 Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan