> > anyway? ;-)) If so, a search for artistid 100050450 definitely *should*
> > use a sequential scan.
>
> I tested this statement against the database and you are right, about 14
> seconds with the index, 4 without.
Now I don't understand the problem any more. Are you complaining, that
the optimizer is choosing a faster path ? Or are you saying, that you also
get the seq scan for other very infrequent values ?
Andreas
