On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote: > > Of course, if the 10113-match estimate is wildly off (as it was in this > > case), then the wrong plan may be chosen. But it IS NOT CORRECT to > > suppose that indexscans always beat seqscans. The planner's job would > > be a lot easier if that were true. > > Can't postgres do the index lookup first and find out there are only a > few tuples that might match? Well, theoretically the estimate is supposed to match reality. There are still some cases where there isn't enough information kept to allow that to be true (the case where there is a single very common non-NULL value is one such case).
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Joseph Shraibman
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Stephan Szabo
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Tom Lane
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Joseph Shraibman
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Joseph Shraibman
- Re: Re[2]: [GENERAL] Weird indices Stephan Szabo
- Re: Re[2]: [GENERAL] Weird indices Tom Lane
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Tom Lane
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Joseph Shraibman
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Stephan Szabo
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Joseph Shraibman
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Joseph Shraibman
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Tom Lane
- Re: [GENERAL] Weird indices Ian Lance Taylor