From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index on a NULL-value
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:08:01 -0500
Message-ID: <20050531040801.GA21334@wolff.to> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050531033158.GI26100@tobias.exoweb.net>
References: <20050531030207.GD26100@tobias.exoweb.net>
<20050531031653.GA17723@wolff.to>
<20050531033158.GI26100@tobias.exoweb.net>
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:31:58 +0800,
Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com> wrote:
> [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.
I missed that you turned sequential scans off for your test.
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: bruno@wolff.to, tobias@nordicbet.com
Subject: Re: Index on a NULL-value
In-Reply-To: <20050531040801.GA21334@wolff.to>
* 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