X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D135F3A5BAF for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19961-10 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B994F3A5B90 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mwynhau.demon.co.uk ([193.237.186.96] helo=mainbox.archonet.com) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CtnhF-000OLF-2L; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:02 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.17] (client17.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965C3166B1; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:58:58 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <41F7A222.3040009@archonet.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:58:58 +0000 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Fradkin Cc: gsstark@mit.edu, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres References: <000401c503aa$f8ee5620$797ba8c0@jfradkin> In-Reply-To: <000401c503aa$f8ee5620$797ba8c0@jfradkin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.071 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200501/256 X-Sequence-Number: 20044 Joel Fradkin wrote: > QUERY PLAN > "Seq Scan on tblcase (cost=0.00..30066.21 rows=37401 width=996) (actual > time=0.344..962.260 rows=22636 loops=1)" > " Filter: ((clientnum)::text = 'SAKS'::text)" > "Total runtime: 1034.434 ms" That's only 1 second - to return 22,636 rows. Not 27 seconds, as in the original post. You'll never persuade PG to use the index when some 75% of your rows match the filter - it just doesn't make sense. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd