Magers, James, 14.07.2014 04:20: > Thank you for your feedback. I am attaching the requested information. > While I do not think the query is necessarily inefficient, I believe a > sequence scan would be more efficient.
You can try set enable_indexscan = off; set enable_bitmapscan = off; and then run your query. But I would be very surprised if a seq scan (which reads through the whole table) was faster than those 4ms you have now -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
