"Kevin McArthur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -> Seq Scan on models_brands (cost=0.00..6411.89 rows=369489
> width=4) (actual time=0.040..1352.997 rows=369489 loops=1)
> ...
> -> Index Scan using models_brands_brand on models_brands
> (cost=0.00..862236.96 rows=369489 width=4) (actual time=0.122..1440.809
> rows=369489 loops=1)
> Picks the wrong plan here. Should pick the index with seqscanning enabled.
It's really not possible for a full-table indexscan to be faster than a
seqscan, and not very credible for it even to be approximately as fast.
I suspect your second query here is the beneficiary of the first query
having fetched all the pages into cache. In general, if you want to
optimize for a mostly-cached database, you need to reduce
random_page_cost below its default value ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
