On 25 Feb 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:
> > > Also, the estimate of rows returned from the phone_cat_address scan is
> > > pretty large--how large is the table itself? Sequential scan is
> > > actually faster if you're going to end up returning most of the rows
> > > in the table...
> >
> > yellowpages=# select count(*) from phone_cat_address;
> > count
> > --------
> > 336702
> > (1 row)
> >
> > type typical results should be a tiny fraction of that number.
>
> Well, EXPLAIN is indicating (unless I misread it) that the estimate of
> rows returned is 336702, so it's not surprising that it opts for a
> sequential scan. Is this under 7.1 or 7.2? The latter keeps much
> better statistics about table populations...
this is under 7.2. is there away to force it to use index scan? cause
right now when i'm searching using a cat reference, it's taking a few
seconds.
---
Thomas T. Thai | Minnesota.com | tom@minnesota.com | 612.220.6220
Visit http://www.minnesota.com/
