From: Paul Thomas <paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk>
To: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
Cc: pgsql-sql @ postgresql . org <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Index not used - now me
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:27:48 +0000
Message-ID: <20040209172748.A12934@bacon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200402091502.QAA19246@rodos>
References: <20040209142819.A12693@bacon>
<200402091502.QAA19246@rodos>
On 09/02/2004 15:02 Christoph Haller wrote:
> [snip]
> Thanks for your reply so far, but there is one thing I still don't
> understand.
> You wrote
> It was disabling seqscan that
> was forcing an index scan to appear to be the least costly operation.
>
> Why appear? If the Index Scan has a Total runtime: 2.46 msec and the Seq
> Scan
> a Total runtime: 46.19 msec, then the Index Scan is much faster.
> Or am I completely off the track reading the explain analyze output?
No, I think it's me who's not reading the output correctly :( I didn't
look closely enough to spot the run time difference. How many rows are
there in the table?
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk, ch@rodos.fzk.de
Subject: Re: Index not used - now me
In-Reply-To: <20040209172748.A12934@bacon>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox