On 11 October 2011 21:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> writes: >> So an index-only scan is 30 times slower in this particular test case. > > Don't see why you'd find that unexpected. If you have to visit all the > rows, a seqscan is usually going to be the best way. An indexscan only > has a chance of winning when the index is much smaller than the table, > which isn't the case in your example, even if you hadn't seen to it that > the index wasn't particularly nicely physically ordered.
Ah okay, understood. -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
