Hi guys,
PG = 9.1.5
OS = winDOS 2008R8
I have a table that currently has 207 million rows.
there is a timestamp field that contains data.
more data gets copied from another database into this database.
How do I make this do an index scan instead?
I did an analyze audittrailclinical to no avail.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Chris Ruprecht ch...@cdrbill.com wrote:
Hi guys,
PG = 9.1.5
OS = winDOS 2008R8
I have a table that currently has 207 million rows.
there is a timestamp field that contains data.
more data gets copied from another database into this database.
How do I make
Hi guys,
PG = 9.1.5
OS = winDOS 2008R8
I have a table that currently has 207 million rows.
there is a timestamp field that contains data.
more data gets copied from another database into this database.
How do I make this do an index scan instead?
I did an analyze audittrailclinical to no avail.
On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Chris Ruprecht ch...@cdrbill.com wrote:
Hi guys,
PG = 9.1.5
OS = winDOS 2008R8
I have a table that currently has 207 million rows.
there is a timestamp field that contains data.
more data gets copied from another database into this database.
How do I make
On Oct 16, 2012, at 20:01 , Evgeny Shishkin itparan...@gmail.com wrote:
Selecting 5 yours of data is not selective at all, so postgres decides it is
cheaper to do seqscan.
Do you have an index on patient.dnsortpersonnumber? Can you post a result
from
select count(*) from patient where
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:19:43PM -0400, Chris Ruprecht wrote:
On Oct 16, 2012, at 20:01 , Evgeny Shishkin itparan...@gmail.com wrote:
Selecting 5 yours of data is not selective at all, so postgres decides it
is cheaper to do seqscan.
Do you have an index on
Thanks Bruce,
I have, and I even thought, I understood it :).
I just ran an explain analyze on another table - and ever since the query plan
changed. It's now using the index as expected. I guess, I have some more
reading to do.
On Oct 16, 2012, at 20:31 , Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
