Wohooo, deluxe :-) THANKS EVERYBODY!! Can't see the logic behind that though The jump in the b-tree must save about 5000 checks... half the table?? Thanks! Daniel Åkerud > Daniel ?erud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > and filling it with 10000 rows made out of > > $pwgen 8 10000 > data [enter] > > and then running VACUUM and VACUUM ANALYZE > > still yields a sequential scan doing a > > select * from index_with where name > 'm'; > > namely > > seq scan on index_with (cost=0.00..189 rows 5170 width=16) > > So? You're asking it to retrieve over half of the table (or at least > the planner estimates so, and I don't see any evidence here that its > estimate is wildly off). An indexscan would still be a loser in this > scenario. > > If you want to see an indexscan with an inequality query, try giving > it a reasonably tight range. Probably > > select * from index_with where name > 'm' and name < 'n'; > > would use the index in this example. > > regards, tom lane > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: 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
