On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:31:58 +0800,
Tobias Brox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Tobias Brox]
> > test=# set enable_seqscan=off;
>
> [Bruno Wolff III - Mon at 10:16:53PM -0500]
> > It isn't surprising that an index wasn't used since a sequential scan is
> > going to be faster in your test case.
> >
> > If you want to test this out, you to want use realistically sized tables.
>
> Wrong. In this case I was not wondering about the planners choise of not
> using the index, but the fact that the planner could not find the index at
> all. Reproducing it on a simple table in a test environment was a valid
> strategy to solve this specific problem.
I missed that you turned sequential scans off for your test.
---------------------------(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
