thanks for all your useful comments. i will study all of them.
a couple of inline comments below, just for clarification to the group,
marked with asterisks.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:13:23 -0500, "Scott Marlowe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 10/1/07, Jan Theodore Galkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On 10/1/07, Jan Theodore Galkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> i didn't think this belonged in the general list, but the example i gave
> for discussion was a toy, for illustration. i could not very well post
> the actual example for many reasons, including proprietary ones and,
> give
On 9/27/07, Jan Theodore Galkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fear this has been asked many times about PostgreSQL, and I have read
> the docs about how indexes are supposed to be defined and used, but I
> don't understand why the engine and optimizer is doing what it does in
> the simplest of
Sequence scans of an empty table are going to be faster than an index scan,
so the database uses the sequence scan. Put some data in the tables (some
thousands or millions of records) and then see if it uses an index scan.
Ben
""Jan Theodore Galkowski"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
ne
"Jan Theodore Galkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Total runtime: .169 ms ;
> Like *how* *come*?
You have a problem with 0.1 ms runtime?
But to correct your obvious misunderstanding: yes, the plan depends on
the table size, as well it should.
regards, tom lane
-
