mlw wrote: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > > Now, given the choice of the two strategies on a table, both pretty > > > close to one another, the risk of poor performance for using the > > > index scan is minimal based on the statistics, but the risk of poor > > > performance for using the sequential scan is quite high on a large > > > table. > > > > I thought that's what the various cost estimates were there to cover. > > If this is all you're saying, then the feature is already there. > > The point is that if the index plan is < 20% more costly than the sequential > scan, it is probably less risky.
I just posted on this topic. Index scan is more risky, no question about it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
