Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: ,
Msg-id: 26003.1103218313@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Seqscan rather than Index  (Jon Anderson)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Seqscan rather than Index  (Jon Anderson, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (David Brown, )
  Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Richard Huxton, )
   Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )

Jon Anderson <> writes:
> Any hints on what to do to make PostgreSQL use the index?

You might want to reduce random_page_cost a little.

Keep in mind that your test case is small enough to fit in RAM and is
probably not reflective of what will happen with larger tables.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: UNION ALL vs INHERITANCE
From: David Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index