Hi Edson,
since you are using 'like' in your select, you may want to try the
following (example):
CREATE INDEX "MY_LONG_INDEX_NAME_IDX"
ON "MY_TABLE_NAME"
USING btree
("MY_VARCHAR_FIELD_NAME" COLLATE pg_catalog."default" *varchar_pattern_ops
*);
(for TEXT fields, use *text_pattern_ops* in the index declaration).
I declare all my indexes on string fields that way because MOST of my
queries are with like/ilike anyway, and I haven't noticed that the indexes
would be bigger than without those clauses - I have tables with up to 3M
rows.
Next thing, perhaps your index is declared only for a part of the values in
the column (partial index)?
Next, as Alan said, check if the index is up-to-date (reindex), if in doubt
drop- and recreate it.
I hope that helps.
On 5 December 2012 06:02, Alan Hodgson <ahodg...@simkin.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 02:44:39 AM Edson Richter wrote:
> > Sort (cost=11938.72..11938.74 rows=91 width=93)
> > Sort Key: t0.nome
> > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..11938.42 rows=91 width=93)
> > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..11935.19 rows=91 width=85)
> > -> Seq Scan on logradouro t2 (cost=0.00..11634.42
> > rows=91 width=81)
> > Filter: ((cep)::text ~~ '81630160%'::text)
>
> According to that the logradouro table only has 91 rows, which is why it
> seq-
> scanned it. Has it been analyzed?
>
> Also, partial text matches require a special index declaration, as I
> recall.
> Maybe post a \d of each table to help troubleshoot this.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
