When grilled further on (Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:58:18 -0700),
Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> confessed:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 09:23:38PM -0700, Robert Creager wrote:
> > I'm working with a query to get more info out with a join. The base
> > query works great speed wise because of index usage. When the join is
> > tossed in, the index is no longer used, so the query performance tanks.
>
> The first query you posted returns 285 rows and the second returns
> over one million; index usage aside, that difference surely accounts
> for a performance penalty. And as is often pointed out, index scans
> aren't always faster than sequential scans: the more of a table a
> query has to fetch, the more likely a sequential scan will be faster.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious that I missed. Too much data in the second query. It's supposed to match (row
wise)what was returned from the first query.
Just ignore me for now...
Thanks,
Rob
--
08:15:24 up 3 days, 42 min, 9 users, load average: 2.07, 2.20, 2.25
Linux 2.6.12-12-2 #4 SMP Tue Jan 3 19:56:19 MST 2006