Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1B99FA304
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:15:16 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 30953-08-3 for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:15:01 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de
	[212.227.126.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E869FB8DF
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:13:44 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [194.25.154.138] (helo=webserv.wug.de)
	by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis),
	id 0ML29c-1HelRG3BMD-0003J1; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:13:43 +0200
Received: from kretschmer by webserv.wug.de with local (Exim 3.36 #1)
	id 1HelRG-00044O-00
	for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:13:42 +0200
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:13:42 +0200
From: "A. Kretschmer" <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: many 'OR' in WHERE-condition
Message-ID: <20070420051341.GA15322@a-kretschmer.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-OS: Debian/GNU Linux - weil ich es mir Wert bin!
X-Message-Flag: "Windows" is not the answer. "Windows" is the question and the
	answer is "no"!
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18f10StNGT/eMHWQjSyEEZimQivSyJuVce/vWQ
	qWDLPzbeqxGuJpRRs4X1cBUMepuc7FZIpa0cBqJtzAgBbaqNHC
	6kX5rg1dzP0DH/fiJtiHi5ph9fuCq89
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200704/170
X-Sequence-Number: 28170

Hello,

a friend of mine has got a problem:

in a SELECT with a condition 'WHERE foo IN (1,2,3,4,...)' with a large
list within. The optimizer choose a rewrite to many OR's and a bitmap
index scan on the index, no problem, fast.

But if the list increase the planner choose an seq-scan. The amount of
values in the list is about 200 and the table has about 250.000 rows.


How can we avoid the seq-scan?


Andreas, thx in advance.
-- 
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt:  Heynitz: 035242/47150,   D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID:   0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA   http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net