X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784403A54E9 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:22:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18954-01 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:22:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from quasar.skima.is (quasar.skima.is [212.30.200.205]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E1A3A5501 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:22:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wp2000 ([157.157.176.239] [157.157.176.239]) by quasar.skima.is; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:22:25 Z Message-Id: <004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000> From: "gnari" To: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" , References: <004c01c4d74e$1c61d110$b400a8c0@bluebamboo.ph> Subject: Re: FW: Index usage Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:24:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200412/13 X-Sequence-Number: 9388 From: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" > 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