Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns?
| От | TJ O'Donnell |
|---|---|
| Тема | Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2842.209.223.166.104.1107284205.squirrel@gnova.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: visualizing B-tree index coverage (PFC <lists@boutiquenumerique.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns?
Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns? |
| Список | pgsql-general |
I have a table of about 5 million rows, 24 columns.
Integer column _c is BTREE indexed (as is _n, _o and 3 others).
This I understand and like:
Explain Analyze Select count(smiles) from structure where _c = 30
Aggregate (cost=105595.11..105595.11 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=17.722..17.724 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using "Nc" on structure (cost=0.00..105528.89 rows=26486 width=32) (actual
time=0.098..16.095 rows=734 loops=1)
Index Cond: (_c = 30)
Total runtime: 18.019 ms
This I don't get. Why is an index scan not used? Isn't an index supposed
to help when using > < >= <= too?
Explain Analyze Select count(smiles) from structure where _c >= 30
Aggregate (cost=196033.74..196033.74 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=42133.432..42133.434 rows=1
loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on structure (cost=0.00..191619.56 rows=1765669 width=32) (actual
time=8050.437..42117.062 rows=1569 loops=1)
Filter: (_c >= 30)
Total runtime: 42133.746 ms
TJ
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: