X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A4111F7DAE for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 16:46:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27534-03 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 16:46:58 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from megazone.bigpanda.com (megazone.bigpanda.com [64.147.171.210]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7DC11F7D8A for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 16:46:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E02AA350AD; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB005350A3; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephan Szabo To: Jan Kesten Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: index not used again In-Reply-To: <442FF9C0.2070702@web.de> Message-ID: <20060402124047.X46838@megazone.bigpanda.com> References: <442CF375.2080903@web.de> <20060331064252.J61282@megazone.bigpanda.com> <442FF9C0.2070702@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.137 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137] X-Spam-Score: 0.137 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200604/15 X-Sequence-Number: 18099 On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Jan Kesten wrote: > Stephan Szabo schrieb: > > > Did you reset the table contents between these two (remember that > > explain analyze actually runs the query)? The second appears to be > > changing no rows from the output. > > I for myself did not, but as there are runnig automatic jobs > periodically I can't tell, if one ran in the time while I was testing > (but I guess not). At starting my tests all rows contained a zero for > all tokens and there should be no ones at all. The reason I asked is that the explain analyze output for the first query on fak6 (using a seqscan) seemed to imply 24k rows actually matched the condition and were updated, so comparisons to the later times may be skewed.