2008/6/28 Adam Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > This is not wrong, or at least not obviously wrong. A full-table > > indexscan is often slower than seqscan-and-sort. If the particular > > case is wrong for you, you need to look at adjusting the planner's > > cost parameters to match your environment. But you didn't provide any > > evidence that the chosen plan is actually worse than the alternative > > ... > > I think I understand what Bob's getting at when he mentions blocking. > The seqscan-and-sort would return the last record faster, but the > indexscan returns the first record faster. If you're iterating > through the records via a cursor, the indexscan behavior would be > more desirable. You could get the initial rows back without waiting > for all 130 million to be fetched and sorted. > > In oracle, there is a first-rows vs. all-rows query hint for this sort > of thing. >
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I've already tried your suggestion (set enable_seqscan to off) with no luck. Bob
