Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 18:52:05 -0400,
  Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

After sending that email I kept plucking away and in the course of doing so decided that I didn't need to return the 'file_type' column. Other than that, it would see my query now matches what you two have recommended in the 'ORDER BY...' front but I still can't get an index search.

No it doesn't. Even if you don't return file_type you still need it
in the order by clause if you want postgres to consider using your

Is there some reason you didn't actually try out our suggestion, but are
now asking for more advice?

No good excuse.

I'll recreate the index and test out your suggestion...

tle-bu=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT file_name, file_parent_dir, file_type FROM file_info_7 WHERE file_type='d' ORDER BY file_type ASC, file_parent_dir ASC, file_name ASC;
                                                         QUERY PLAN
Sort (cost=14789.92..14857.06 rows=26856 width=117) (actual time=16865.473..16989.104 rows=25795 loops=1)
   Sort Key: file_type, file_parent_dir, file_name
-> Seq Scan on file_info_7 (cost=0.00..11762.44 rows=26856 width=117) (actual time=0.178..1920.413 rows=25795 loops=1)
         Filter: ((file_type)::text = 'd'::text)
 Total runtime: 17102.925 ms
(5 rows)

tle-bu=> \d file_info_7_display_idx  Index "public.file_info_7_display_idx"
     Column      |         Type
 file_type       | character varying(2)
 file_parent_dir | text
 file_name       | text
btree, for table "public.file_info_7"

  I'm still getting the sequential scan.


Madison Kelly (Digimer)
TLE-BU, The Linux Experience; Back Up

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to