On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:42:00PM +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> OK, maybe that's the point... the "cost bust" given to the sequential
> scan by enable_seqscan=off is not enough in this case to exceed the cost
> of the index scan ? The table is quite big, might be possible. I still
> wonder why would be seqscan+sort faster than index scan... the sort will
> for sure have to write to disk too given the size of the table...
Have you tuned the values of effective_cache_size and random_page_cost?
These have significant effects on index scans.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
