From: gnari <gnari@simnet.is>
To: BBI Edwin Punzalan <edwin@bluebamboo.ph>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FW: Index usage
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:24:59 -0000
Message-ID: <004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000> (raw)
References: <004c01c4d74e$1c61d110$b400a8c0@bluebamboo.ph>
From: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <edwin@bluebamboo.ph>
> Thanks but whatever it does, it didn't work. :
> Do you think upgrading will fix this problem?
are you sure there is a problem here to solve ?
> Seq Scan on chatlogs (cost=0.00..27252.86 rows=271882 width=212) (actual
> time=12.24..13419.36 rows=257137 loops=1)
you see that the actual rowcount matches the estimate,
so the planner is not being misled by wrong statistics.
you realize that an indexscan is not allways faster than
sequential scan unless the number of rows are a small
percentage of the total number of rows
did you try to add a 'order by date' clause to your query ?
gnari
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: gnari@simnet.is, edwin@bluebamboo.ph
Subject: Re: FW: Index usage
In-Reply-To: <004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox