From: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index on a NULL-value
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:31:58 +0800
Message-ID: <20050531033158.GI26100@tobias.exoweb.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050531031653.GA17723@wolff.to>
References: <20050531030207.GD26100@tobias.exoweb.net>
<20050531031653.GA17723@wolff.to>
[Tobias Brox]
> test=# set enable_seqscan=off;
[Bruno Wolff III - Mon at 10:16:53PM -0500]
> It isn't surprising that an index wasn't used since a sequential scan is
> going to be faster in your test case.
>
> If you want to test this out, you to want use realistically sized tables.
Wrong. In this case I was not wondering about the planners choise of not
using the index, but the fact that the planner could not find the index at
all. Reproducing it on a simple table in a test environment was a valid
strategy to solve this specific problem.
--
Tobias Brox, Beijing
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: tobias@nordicbet.com
Subject: Re: Index on a NULL-value
In-Reply-To: <20050531033158.GI26100@tobias.exoweb.net>
* 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