DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id;
	b=dGgVHgQOsWhDa7fE7J7TlUAmQZ9Dvjcg/9P8NqhnItKeLosD1zPSJcCHxOcQxgmXZtFRAG5Qus69KOA6A8GvnYwfl6Cks83RK2RlSvJByO5BzYWA8MdAFhteHu5mqcNXOI9WHR6nfLtQ3SfoM91s/N1E3AejQu80h2f3HaOc0LY=
From: Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Simple Join
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:12:56 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
References: <200512141603.52583.blargity@gmail.com>
	<7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <7484.1134600423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200512141712.56919.blargity@gmail.com>

On Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:47, you wrote:
> Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm running 8.1 installed from source on a Debian Sarge server.  I have a
> > simple query that I believe I've placed the indexes correctly for, and I
> > still end up with a seq scan.  It makes sense, kinda, but it should be
> > able to use the index to gather the right values.
>
> I continue to marvel at how many people think that if it's not using an
> index it must ipso facto be a bad plan ...
>
> That plan looks perfectly fine to me.  You could try forcing some other
> choices by fooling with the planner enable switches (eg set
> enable_seqscan = off) but I doubt you'll find much improvement.  There
> are too many rows being pulled from ordered_products to make an index
> nestloop a good idea.

That's fine, so being a postgres novice, as I stated in my original post, what 
would be the best way to improve performance?  Redundant column that's 
updated via a trigger?  I'm asking this list because I'd like to do it right, 
as opposed to get it done.

>    regards, tom lane