Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Now, given the choice of the two strategies on a table, both pretty > > close to one another, the risk of poor performance for using the > > index scan is minimal based on the statistics, but the risk of poor > > performance for using the sequential scan is quite high on a large > > table. > > I thought that's what the various cost estimates were there to cover. > If this is all you're saying, then the feature is already there.
The point is that if the index plan is < 20% more costly than the sequential scan, it is probably less risky. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
