Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> You can't "turn off" sequential scans. You can only make the planner
>> less likely to choose them. But if there's no way to get the data you
>> need other than a seqscan, it's still going to do one.
> And that's not a bad thing. For a very small table, it's often the
> fastest method.
Probably more to the point: if the query involves fetching the whole
table, it's *always* the fastest method. (Except maybe if you want
the results sorted, and often it's the fastest way even so.) Indexes
are not a panacea.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
