From: | Kishore B <kishorebh(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why Index is not working on date columns. |
Date: | 2005-10-25 15:04:21 |
Message-ID: | 42567e060510250804y3329c901l21770d887dfcde42@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your response.
> I surmise that you are testing on toy tables and extrapolating to what
> will happen on larger tables.
>
These tables participating here contain more than 8 million records as of
now, and on every day, 200K records, will add to them.
Thank you,
Kishore.
On 10/25/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Kishore B <kishorebh(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Can you guys please take a look at the following query and let me know
> why
> > the index is not considered in the plan?
>
> "Considered" and "used" are two different things.
>
> The two examples you give have the same estimated cost (within two
> decimal places) so the planner sees no particular reason to choose one
> over the other.
>
> I surmise that you are testing on toy tables and extrapolating to what
> will happen on larger tables. This is an unjustified assumption.
> Create a realistic test data set, ANALYZE it, and then see if the
> planner chooses indexes you like.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rodrigo Madera | 2005-10-25 16:03:19 | Re: Inefficient escape codes. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-25 14:27:08 | Re: Reindex - Is this necessary after a vacuum? |