Giorgio Valoti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GroupAggregate (cost=98431.58..119773.92 rows=74226 width=8)
> -> Sort (cost=98431.58..99050.92 rows=247736 width=8)
> Sort Key: (day_trunc(ts))
> -> Seq Scan on blackbox (cost=0.00..72848.36 rows=247736 width=8)
> GroupAggregate (cost=0.00..19109.66 rows=74226 width=8)
> -> Index Scan using test_2_idx on blackbox (cost=0.00..16943.16
> rows=247736 width=8)
These numbers seem pretty bogus: there is hardly any scenario in which a
full-table indexscan should be costed as significantly cheaper than a
seqscan. Have you put in silly values for random_page_cost?
If you haven't mucked with the cost parameters, the only way I can think
of to get this result is to have an enormously bloated table that's
mostly empty. Maybe you need to review your vacuuming procedures.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
