X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9B2476305
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 May 2003 01:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC3B475B8E
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 May 2003 01:26:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h485QjU6017621;
	Thu, 8 May 2003 01:26:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: david@stanaway.net
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Timestamp index not used 
In-reply-to: <50240.10.0.50.1.1052366175.squirrel@david.stanaway.net> 
References: <50240.10.0.50.1.1052366175.squirrel@david.stanaway.net>
Comments: In-reply-to <david@stanaway.net>
	message dated "Wed, 07 May 2003 22:56:15 -0500"
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 01:26:45 -0400
Message-ID: <17620.1052371605@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-25.8 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_00,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
	REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200305/155
X-Sequence-Number: 13320

<david@stanaway.net> writes:
> radius=# EXPLAIN SELECT * from alldata where loggedat > '2003-05-07';
> NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:
> Seq Scan on alldata  (cost=0.00..286136.26 rows=1428487 width=780)
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^

The planner seems to think that this query will return rather a lot of
rows ... which would imply that a seqscan isn't necessarily a bad idea.
Is that rows estimate accurate?  (If not, have you ANALYZEd this table
lately?)

			regards, tom lane