Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 18:52:05 -0400,
Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Advertising
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
index.
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
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Madison Kelly (Digimer)
TLE-BU, The Linux Experience; Back Up
http://tle-bu.thelinuxexperience.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
