[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On the other end of the spectrum there are many addresses with only one
> entry. When I use one of these addresses in the WHERE clause it takes
> just as long as the address with 150k rows. If the sequential scan is
> better for 150k rows out of 800k rows, what abo
ipped in favor of seq scan.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I am working with putting syslog logs into a database, I'm parsing the
> logs and using the key information for my fields. With my test data
of
> ~200K rows the optimizer used my b-tree index that I created for an
> oft-us
