I just ran a vacuum analyze with the specific column. Still get the same explain plan:
Seq Scan on symbol_data (cost=0.00..709962.90 rows=369782 width=129)
--Michael
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I said:symbol_data | symbol_name | 0 | 7 | 152988 |
{EBALX,ELTE,LIT,OEX,RESC,BS,ESH,HOC,IBC,IDA} |
{0.0183333,0.0173333,0.00166667,0.00166667,0.00166667,0.00133333,0.00133333,0.00133333,0.00133333,0.00133333}
| {A,BMO,DBD,FSCHX,IIX,MAS,NSANY,PTEC,SR,UTIL,_^^VPM} | 0.128921
(1 row)What this says is that in the last ANALYZE, EBALX accounted for 18% of
the sample, and ELTE for 17%.
Argh, make that 1.8% and 1.7%.
That's still orders of magnitude away from what you say the correct
frequency is, however: 687 out of 20+ million. I'd like to think that
the statistical sampling would be unlikely to make such a large error.
regards, tom lane
