Pretty sure. I just ran the same query twice in a row with enable_seqscan=true and the "actual time" was on the order of 42 seconds both times. With enable_seqscan=false, it was on the order 3 seconds. Going back to enable_seqscan=true, it's back to 42 seconds. Unless you're saying that enable_seqscan is determining whether or not the data is being cached....
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Fernando Hevia <fhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 17:35, Alessandro Gagliardi > <alessan...@path.com>wrote: > >> Well that was a *lot* faster: >> >> "HashAggregate (cost=156301.82..156301.83 rows=2 width=26) (actual >> time=2692.806..2692.807 rows=2 loops=1)" >> " -> Bitmap Heap Scan on blocks (cost=14810.54..155828.95 rows=472871 >> width=26) (actual time=289.828..1593.893 rows=575186 loops=1)" >> " Recheck Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp >> with time zone)" >> " Filter: (shared IS FALSE)" >> " -> Bitmap Index Scan on blocks_created_idx >> (cost=0.00..14786.89 rows=550404 width=0) (actual time=277.407..277.407 >> rows=706663 loops=1)" >> " Index Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp >> with time zone)" >> "Total runtime: 2693.107 ms" >> >> > U sure the new timing isn't owed to cached data? If I am reading it > correctly, from the latest explain you posted the Index Scan shouldn't have > made a difference as it is reporting pretty much all rows in the table have > created > 'yesterday'. > If the number of rows with created < 'yesterday' isn't significant (~ over > 25% with default config) a full scan will be chosen and it will probably be > the better choice too. > > >