X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043FADAD5E for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:01:07 -0300 (ADT) 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 53737-05 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:01:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F52EDAD25 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:01:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9PI14kZ018599; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:01:04 -0400 (EDT) To: Kishore B Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Why Index is not working on date columns. In-reply-to: <42567e060510250804y3329c901l21770d887dfcde42@mail.gmail.com> References: <42567e060510250147j582ce648p3ceef8e4376975be@mail.gmail.com> <13279.1130247515@sss.pgh.pa.us> <42567e060510250804y3329c901l21770d887dfcde42@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Kishore B message dated "Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:34:21 +0530" Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:01:04 -0400 Message-ID: <18598.1130263264@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/369 X-Sequence-Number: 15137 Kishore B writes: >> I surmise that you are testing on toy tables and extrapolating to what >> will happen on larger tables. >> > These tables participating here contain more than 8 million records as of > now, and on every day, 200K records, will add to them. In that case, have you ANALYZEd the tables lately? The planner's cost estimates correspond to awfully small tables ... regards, tom lane