> You can force sort-based or index-based ordering by issuing
> SET enable_indexscan = OFF;
> or
> SET enable_sort = OFF;
> respectively. I suggest that the next step should be to see what
> EXPLAIN says for all four queries in both cases (so we can see what
> the planner's estimates for the two cases actually are for each
> table), and then to measure the actual runtimes of each of the
> SELECTs both ways.
Here is to comparison:
explain select ... from customer order by custid;
Sort (cost=598354.56..598354.56 rows=2446621 width=40)
-> Seq Scan on customer (cost=0.00..75939.21 rows=2446621 width=40)
Index Scan using icusid on customer (cost=0.00..823287.37 rows=2446621
width=40)
Choice was sort
explain select ... from orders order by custid;
Sort (cost=167945.80..167945.80 rows=588242 width=60)
-> Seq Scan on orders (cost=0.00..31399.42 rows=588242 width=60)
Index Scan using iordcus3 on orders (cost=0.00..326167.12 rows=588242
width=60)
Choice was sort
explain select ... from contact order by custid;
Sort (cost=1874247.64..1874247.64 rows=6462635 width=44)
-> Seq Scan on contact (cost=0.00..141404.35 rows=6462635 width=44)
Index Scan using iconcus4 on contact (cost=0.00..1446338.62 rows=6462635
width=44)
Choice was index
explain select ... from custlist order by custid;
Sort (cost=469342.83..469342.83 rows=2738543 width=8)
-> Seq Scan on custlist (cost=0.00..42109.43 rows=2738543 width=8)
Index Scan using iclcust3 on custlist (cost=0.00..334501.73 rows=2738543
width=8)
Choice was index
