Eddy Escardo-Raffo <eesca...@kikini.com> writes:
> The table used in this query is called "users", and it has columns "userid"
> (primary key) and "location".
> The "location" column is indexed.
> The users table has 1 million rows, and all rows have integer typed value
> '-1' for "location" column, except for 2 rows that have the integer value
> '76543'.
Oh, after poking at it a bit more, I realize the problem: the planner
doesn't want to use an indexscan because it assumes there's a
significant probability that the search will be for -1 (in which case
the indexscan would be slower than a seqscan, as indeed your results
prove). Even though it could know in this particular case that the
comparison value isn't -1, I doubt that teaching it that would help your
real queries where it will probably be impossible to determine the
comparison values in advance.
I would suggest considering using NULL rather than inventing a dummy
value for unknown locations. The estimation heuristics will play a
lot nicer with that choice.
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
