>>>Tom Lane said:> Hm. Okay, so the number-of-rows estimate is not too far off. I concur> with Hiroshi's comment: the
reasonthe indexscan is so fast must be that> the table is clustered (physical order largely agrees with index order).>
Thiswould obviously hold if the records were entered in order by> ipdate; is that true?
Yes. But... do you want me to cluster it by ipaddr for example and try it
again? I understand the clustering might help with sequential scans, but why
would it help with index scans?
Daniel
