X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4BDD1D6B9
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:24:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 31032-04
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:24:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D8AD1D8B5
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:24:05 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hATHOB19007719;
	Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:24:11 -0500 (EST)
To: ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Seq Scans when index expected to be used 
In-reply-to: <20031129164924.51035.qmail@web21401.mail.yahoo.com> 
References: <20031129164924.51035.qmail@web21401.mail.yahoo.com>
Comments: In-reply-to ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com>
	message dated "Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:49:24 -0800"
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:24:10 -0500
Message-ID: <7718.1070126650@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200311/341
X-Sequence-Number: 16156

ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com> writes:
> Am trying to find duplicate values in a large table (about 80M records).
> Somehow, none of the two (2) queries (see below) is using the index "I_bca"
> that, I believe, should've been used.

Those plans are perfectly reasonable (particularly the GroupAggregate one).

			regards, tom lane