X-Original-To: pgsql-bugs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B8052A1D
	for <pgsql-bugs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:05:41 -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 47813-08
	for <pgsql-bugs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:05:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CCF3529F1
	for <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:05:34 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 23844 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jul 2005 14:06:42 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:06:42 -0500
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Magno Leite <magnomilk@yahoo.com.br>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan
Message-ID: <20050729140642.GA23650@wolff.to>
Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
	Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>,
	Magno Leite <magnomilk@yahoo.com.br>
References: <20050729125245.1166CF0B14@svr2.postgresql.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050729125245.1166CF0B14@svr2.postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200507/250
X-Sequence-Number: 12413

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 13:52:45 +0100,
  Magno Leite <magnomilk@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> 
> Description:        Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan
> 
> I looked for about this problem in BUG REPORT but I can't find. This is my
> problem, when I try to use limit in a function, the Postgre doesn't use my
> index, then it use sequencial scan. What is the problem ?

You haven't described the problem well enough to allow us to help you and
you posted it to the wrong list. This should be discussed on the performance
list, not the bug list.

It would help if you showed us the query you are running and run it outside
of the function with EXPLAIN ANALYSE and show us that output. Depending
on what that output shows, we may ask you other questions.