Re: Index not used - now me

On 09/02/2004 15:02 Christoph Haller wrote:
> [snip]
> Thanks for your reply so far, but there is one thing I still don't
> understand.
> You wrote
> It was disabling seqscan that
> was forcing an index scan to appear to be the least costly operation.
> 
> Why appear? If the Index Scan has a Total runtime: 2.46 msec and the Seq
> Scan
> a Total runtime: 46.19 msec, then the Index Scan is much faster.
> Or am I completely off the track reading the explain analyze output?

No, I think it's me who's not reading the output correctly :( I didn't 
look closely enough to spot the run time difference. How many rows are 
there in the table?

-- 
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller 
Business |
| Computer Consultants         | 
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk   |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+