In response to Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In response to Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Pablo Alcaraz wrote: > >> > it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset > >> > on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full > >> > scan. > >> > >> You mean: Be able to tell Postgres "Don't ever do a sequential scan of > >> this table. It's silly. I would rather the query failed than have to wait > >> for a sequential scan of the entire table." > >> > >> Yes, that would be really useful, if you have huge tables in your > >> database. > > > > Is there something wrong with: > > set enable_seqscan = off > > ? > > This does kind of the opposite of what you would actually want here. What you > want is that if you give it a query which would be best satisfied by a > sequential scan it should throw an error since you've obviously made an error > in the query. > > What this does is it forces such a query to use an even *slower* method such > as a large index scan. In cases where there isn't any other method it goes > ahead and does the sequential scan anyways.
Ah. I misunderstood the intent of the comment. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
