Hi Jeff,
It looks like the original emailer wrote a query that the planner is not
> smart enough to plan properly (A known limitation of that kind of query).
> He then made a bunch of changes, none of which worked. He then re-wrote
> the query into a form for which the planner does a better job
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Varadharajan Mukundan
wrote:
> Sorry that i just joined the list and have to break the thread to reply to
> Tom Lane's response on this @
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13741.1396275...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
>
> Note that the indexscan is actually *slower* than th
Sorry that i just joined the list and have to break the thread to reply to
Tom Lane's response on this @
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13741.1396275...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Note that the indexscan is actually *slower* than the seqscan so far as
> the table access is concerned; if the table were b
