X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8612A925D06 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 80853-01 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from utahisp.com (pop3.utahisp.com [66.239.12.3]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDC1925CD3 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chad [63.230.8.76] by utahisp.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AAD9EA370084; Fri, 30 May 2003 13:02:49 -0600 Message-ID: <00cd01c326dd$d4342180$32021aac@chad> From: "Chad Thompson" To: "Tom Lane" Cc: "pgsql-sql" References: <004601c32606$884af960$32021aac@chad> <28951.1054233994@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: Index scan never executed? Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 13:01:07 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Declude-Sender: chad@weblinkservices.com [63.230.8.76] X-Declude-Spoolname: Daad9ea3700844c98.SMD X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Archive-Number: 200305/578 X-Sequence-Number: 13743 > > I guess it's a little unclear what to print for the first number when no > rows are output at all. The code evidently is using the total time spent > in the plan node, but I think it would be at least as justifiable to > print a zero instead. Would you have found that less confusing? Anyone > else have an opinion about whether to change that detail? > No, that makes perfect sense now that it has been explained. > Perhaps an index on project_id would be more helpful, or a two-column > index on (project_id, start_time). As usual, you are in fine form. A two-column index brought the query from 115 sec to 6. Thanks! Chad