Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index?
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1093804128.5493.22.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Why does a simple query not use an obvious index? ("Jack Kerkhof" <jack.kerkhof@guest-tek.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 11:12, Jack Kerkhof wrote: > The query: > > select count(*) from billing where timestamp > now()-60 > > should obviously use the index > > CREATE INDEX billing_timestamp_idx ON billing USING btree > ("timestamp" timestamp_ops); > > on a table with 1400000 rows. > > But it uses a Seq Scan. If I set enable_seqscan=no, it indicates a > queryplan could not be calculated. Have you tried this: marlowe=> select now()-60; ERROR: operator does not exist: timestamp with time zone - integer HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument type(s). You may need to add explicit type casts. you likely need: smarlowe=> select now()-'60 seconds'::interval; ?column? ------------------------------- 2004-08-29 12:25:38.249564-06 inside there. Also, count(*) is likely to always generate a seq scan due to the way aggregates are implemented currently in pgsql. you might want to try: select somefield from sometable where timestampfield > now()-'60 seconds'::interval and count the number of returned rows. If there's a lot, it won't be any faster, if there's a few, it should be a win.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: