The topic below is quite common on the general list, people tend to ask without
checking the documentation. I think most of those questions will
disappear if the planner output is modified, so it is clear why a decision is made
(maybe with an extra option).
e.g. something like this if an index scan is possible but not used:
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM copy_of_forum_list_child WHERE f_id = 1 and
father_name = 'top';
Seq Scan on copy_of_forum_list_child (cost=0.00..2.44 rows=1width=100, costs using
index: 0.00...9.44 rows=... with=...)
Any comments?
Regards,
Mario Weilguni
---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ----------
Subject: [GENERAL] index not scanned
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:46:39 +0200
From: "Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "postgresql" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi
I add an Index to table that have only 30 rows.
CREATE INDEX copy_of_forum_l_c_f_id_idx ON copy_of_forum_list_child ( f_id,
father_name );
when i do:
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM copy_of_forum_list_child WHERE f_id = 1 and
father_name = 'top';
its return: Seq Scan on copy_of_forum_list_child (cost=0.00..2.44 rows=1
width=100)
why its not scanning the index ?
does the planner knows that the table is small and it will take more time to
check the index then stright check ?
by the way, the table will get quite big in the future.
Cheers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(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
