От: gnari
Тема: Re: FW: Index usage
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan")
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

FW: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
 Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
  Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
   Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
    Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
     Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
      Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
       Re: FW: Index usage  ("Iain", )
        Re: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
         Re: FW: Index usage  ("Iain", )
       Re: FW: Index usage  ("gnari", )
 Re: FW: FW: Index usage  (Richard Huxton, )
  Re: FW: FW: Index usage  ("BBI Edwin Punzalan", )
   Re: FW: FW: Index usage  (Richard Huxton, )

From: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <>


> Thanks but whatever it does, it didn't work. :

> Do you think upgrading will fix this problem?

are you sure there is a problem here to solve ?

> Seq Scan on chatlogs  (cost=0.00..27252.86 rows=271882 width=212) (actual
> time=12.24..13419.36 rows=257137 loops=1)

you see that the actual rowcount matches the estimate,
so the planner is not being misled by wrong statistics.
you realize that an indexscan is not allways faster than
sequential scan unless the number of rows are a small
percentage of the total number of rows

did you try to add a 'order by date' clause to your query ?

gnari





В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: "George Woodring"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Query Performance and IOWait
От: Shridhar Daithankar
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours!