> > 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 optimizer is choosing a faster path ? Or are you saying, that you also get the seq scan for other very infrequent values ? Andreas
- AW: [HACKERS] SourceForge & Postgres Zeugswetter Andreas SB
- Zeugswetter Andreas SB