mlw wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > Now, given the choice of the two strategies on a table, both pretty
> > > close to one another, the risk of poor performance for using the
> > > index scan is minimal based on the statistics, but the risk of poor
> > > performance for using the sequential scan is quite high on a large
> > > table.
> >
> > I thought that's what the various cost estimates were there to cover.
> > If this is all you're saying, then the feature is already there.
>
> The point is that if the index plan is < 20% more costly than the sequential
> scan, it is probably less risky.
I just posted on this topic. Index scan is more risky, no question
about it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
