DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole;
	b=A+PCKw8UNDKaiYAJnm5l1XvtwhZZFgmtVxqZfoWrBE7Hzja3w4KnNA+hrQnS4ofZU0BFCmgmCnpt9sHFP7a5uBIbYv6iPJuhqa8Vilc4eNKk/WY/ahaM4aUeOrhoE/CMKUyEaq6OS/F1hNol+t7NAAvcZinxvOlJ181s3RJpddA=
Message-ID: <031701c6d764$05b0c490$0c67a8c0@maniek>
From: "Marcin Mank" <marcin.mank@gmail.com>
To: "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d@gmail.com>,
	<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <38242de90609121517y62517040v8622b9ae93cba23d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:39:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Is there anything I'm missing that is preventing it from using the index?
It
> just seems weird to me that other joins like this work fine and fast
> with indexes,
> but this one won't.


Did You consider clustering both tables on the dsiacctno index?

I just checked that for a 4M rows table even with enable_seqscan=on and
default *page_cost on PG 8.1.4 an index scan is being chosen for
select * from table order by serial_pkey_field


This is essentially the question in Your case - sort it, or get it sorted
via the index at the expense of more random IO.

I think clustering should work for You, but I am no expert, check with
others.

Greetings
Marcin