Re: FW: Index usage

From: gnari
Subject: Re: FW: Index usage
Date: ,
Msg-id: 004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan")
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

FW: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
 Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
  Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
   Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
    Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
     Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
      Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
       Re: FW: Index usage  ("Iain", )
        Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
         Re: FW: Index usage  ("Iain", )
       Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
 Re: FW: FW: Index usage  (Richard Huxton, )
  Re: FW: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
   Re: FW: FW: Index usage  (Richard Huxton, )

From: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <>


> Thanks but whatever it does, it didn't work. :

> Do you think upgrading will fix this problem?

are you sure there is a problem here to solve ?

> Seq Scan on chatlogs  (cost=0.00..27252.86 rows=271882 width=212) (actual
> time=12.24..13419.36 rows=257137 loops=1)

you see that the actual rowcount matches the estimate,
so the planner is not being misled by wrong statistics.
you realize that an indexscan is not allways faster than
sequential scan unless the number of rows are a small
percentage of the total number of rows

did you try to add a 'order by date' clause to your query ?

gnari





pgsql-performance by date:

From: "George Woodring"
Date:
Subject: Re: Query Performance and IOWait
From: Shridhar Daithankar
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours!