> > anyway? ;-)) If so, a search for artistid 100050450 definitely *should*
> > use a sequential scan.
>
> I tested this statement against the database and you are right, about 14
> seconds with the index, 4 without.
Now I don't understand the problem any more. Are you complaining, that
the op
> I see it, yes. Was this an intended change ? I am quite sure, that it was
> attdisbursion in 7.0 ?
Yes, I couldn't spell dispersion in the past. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is
> btw anyone trying this query should use: "attdispersion"
>
I see it, yes. Was this an intended change ? I am quite sure, that it was
attdisbursion in 7.0 ?
Andreas
> I have an index on group_id, one on
> (group_id,status_id) and one on (group_id,status_id,assigned_to)
As an aside notice: you should definitely only need the last of the
three indices, since it can perfectly work on group_id
or group_id + status_id only restrictions.
Andreas
