Subra Radhakrishnan writes:
> I have attached file explaining inconsistent usage of
> Index.
In the first case the system thinks it's getting 22 rows back, in the
second 713. Depending on how many rows are in the table and whether those
estimates are close, choosing a sequential scan in the second case is
probably okay.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter