Re: Why those queries do not utilize indexes?

From: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>
To: Artimenko Igor <igorart7(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why those queries do not utilize indexes?
Date: 2004-08-27 19:49:12
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0408272146260.9559-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Artimenko Igor wrote:

> 1. Sequential search and very high cost if set enable_seqscan to on;
> Seq scan on messageinfo ( cost=0.00..24371.30, rows =36802 )
>
> 2. Index scan but even bigger cost if set enable_seqscan to off;
> Index “messagesStatus” on messageinfo ( Cost=0.00..27220.72, rows=36802 )

So pg thinks that a sequential scan will be a little bit faster (The cost
is a little bit smaller). If you compare the actual runtimes maybe you
will see that pg was right. In this case the cost is almost the same so
the runtime is probably almost the same.

When you have more data pg will start to use the index since then it will
be faster to use an index compared to a seq. scan.

--
/Dennis Björklund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mischa Sandberg 2004-08-27 19:50:12 Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-08-27 19:42:50 Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?