> Keep in mind that the penalty for no index is a sequential scan, which
> _usually_ is a light operation. In fact, many queryes don't even use
> indexes if they are going to need to see more than a small portion of
> the table.
I agree...
Managing customers'DBs for years now, I'm convinced that systematic indexes are
good only for the intellect of the DBA because it may respect some methods :-)
Too many tables with less than thousands records. Automatic indexes are
annoying, I have to drop em all every time. It's harder to think in droping
unwanted indexes than creating wanted ones.
I know DBAs that drop automatic PK index created by PG only because the naming
method choosen for index is not like they want.. :-)
Table scans are always good idea for litle tables. Even more if the table is
fully cached (I dream of a "CREATE TABLE... CACHE"). Cool too when we'll be
able to store execution plans :-)
Finaly, there would be tables with more index than data :-) if you consider
tables with many FK. Where's the gain then?
Best regards,
--
Jean-Paul ARGUDO IDEALX S.A.S
Consultant bases de données 15-17, av. de Ségur
http://IDEALX.com/ F-75007 PARIS
