mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> I am speaking of contains, as contains is the one that was said to
> require a seqscan. I am questioning why it requires a seqscan. The
> claim was made that with MVCC, the index is insufficient to check
> for visibility and that the table would need to be accessed anyways,
> therefore a seqscan is required. I question whether a like '%bar%'
> should be considered a high selectivity query in the general case.
> I question whether a worst case should be assumed.
If you are doing %bar% you should be using pg_tgrm or tsearch2.
J
>
> Perhaps I question too much? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> mark
>