Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f03GOM796468 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:24:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f03GOkB16363; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:24:46 -0500 (EST) To: "Gilles Bernard" cc: "Ralf Mattes" , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators In-reply-to: <200101031611.RAA08449@fwm1.matra-ms2i.fr> References: <200012290946.KAA01221@fwm1.matra-ms2i.fr> <14474.978302554@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20010101145354.A8897@forte.mh-freiburg.de> <23227.978375037@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200101031611.RAA08449@fwm1.matra-ms2i.fr> Comments: In-reply-to "Gilles Bernard" message dated "Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:09:35 +0100" Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:24:46 -0500 Message-ID: <16360.978539086@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200101/18 X-Sequence-Number: 152 "Gilles Bernard" writes: > I tryed all you suggested me : (forme && '((...))'), drop the index and > recreate it and do a vacuum analyze and it > still do a sequential scan on the whole table. Hm. You might try reducing the selectivity estimates returned by areasel() and friends in src/backend/utils/adt/geo_selfuncs.c. I thought they were small enough already, but perhaps not. regards, tom lane