On 4 Dec 2000, Chris Jones wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 30 Nov 2000, Chris Jones wrote:
> >
> > > PG seems to be choosing a sub-optimal query plan. It's doing a
> > > sequential scan of a 12-tuple table, instead of an index scan for
> > > the 16 matching row
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 Nov 2000, Chris Jones wrote:
>
> > PG seems to be choosing a sub-optimal query plan. It's doing a
> > sequential scan of a 12-tuple table, instead of an index scan for
> > the 16 matching rows. Running PG 7.0.2:
> >
> > fastfacts=> vacuum
