On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:54:52AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
> Here's a "corner case" that might interest someone. It tripped up one of
> our programmers.
>
> We have a table with > 10 million rows. The ID column is indexed, the
> table has been vacuum/analyzed. Compare these two queries:
Tom Lane wrote:
There is not anything in there that considers whether the table's
physical order is so nonrandom that the search will take much longer
than it would given uniform distribution. It might be possible to do
something with the correlation statistic in simple cases ...
In this case,
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suspect it wasn't intended to be a full table scan. But rather a sequential
> scan until it found a matching row. If the data in the table is ordered by
> by id, this strategy may not work out well. Where as if the data is randomly
> ordered, it would
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 08:54 -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
> Here's a "corner case" that might interest someone. It tripped up one of our
> programmers.
>
> We have a table with > 10 million rows. The ID column is indexed, the table
> has been vacuum/analyzed. Compare these two queries:
>
>
Please don't reply to previous messages to start new threads. This makes it
harder to find stuff in the archives and may keep people from noticing your
message.
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:54:52 -0700,
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a "corner case" that might interest someon
Here's a "corner case" that might interest someone. It tripped up one of our
programmers.
We have a table with > 10 million rows. The ID column is indexed, the table
has been vacuum/analyzed. Compare these two queries:
select * from tbl where id >= 1000 limit 1;
select * from tbl wh
