Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
 by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from
 <pgsql-performance-owner+M51937=pgsql-performance-ar@postgresql.org>)
 id 1X6aMI-000293-SA
 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:07:34 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
 by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from
 <pgsql-performance-owner+M51937=pgsql-performance-ar@postgresql.org>)
 id 1X6aMH-0005GJ-7q
 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:07:33 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229])
 by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
 (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gcdpp-pgsql-performance@m.gmane.org>)
 id 1X6aMF-0005Fz-1Z
 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:07:31 +0000
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
 by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gcdpp-pgsql-performance@m.gmane.org>)
 id 1X6aMA-0002DJ-V7
 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:07:28 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
 (envelope-from <gcdpp-pgsql-performance@m.gmane.org>)
 id 1X6aM5-0004jC-SU
 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:07:21 +0200
Received: from 217.110.94.121 ([217.110.94.121])
 by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
 id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
 for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:07:21 +0200
Received: from spam_eater by 217.110.94.121 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
 id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
 for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:07:21 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Query Performance question
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:07:10 +0200
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <lpvviu$en3$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <1405292142269.59034@turner.com>,
 <53C32B20.8010100@fuzzy.cz> <1405304448354.64039@turner.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.110.94.121
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
In-Reply-To: <1405304448354.64039@turner.com>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-performance.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-performance>
List-Unsubscribe: 
 <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Magers, James, 14.07.2014 04:20:

> Thank you for your feedback.  I am attaching the requested information.  
> While I do not think the query is necessarily inefficient, I believe  a sequence scan would be more efficient.  

You can try

set enable_indexscan = off;
set enable_bitmapscan = off;

and then run your query. 

But I would be very surprised if a seq scan (which reads through the whole table) was faster than those 4ms you have now




-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance