On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 00:07 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 14:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > It looks to me like this is a matter of bad cost estimation, ie, it's
> > thinking the other index is cheaper to use. Why that is is not clear.
> > Can we see the pg_stats rows for ctofcNo and calDate?
>
> ISTM that when the BETWEEN constants match we end up in this part of
> clauselist_selectivity()...
(and now for the whole email...)
/*
* It's just roundoff error; use a small positive
* value
*/
s2 = 1.0e-10;
so that the planner underestimates the cost of using "Cal_CalDate" so
that it ends up the same as "Cal_CtofcNo", and then we pick
"Cal_CalDate" because it was created first.
Using 1.0e-10 isn't very useful... the selectivity for a range should
never be less than the selectivity for an equality, so we should simply
put in a test against one of the pseudo constants and use that as the
minimal value. That should lead to raising the apparent cost of
Cal_CalDate so that Cal_CtofcNo can take precedence.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
