Re: Why sequential scan when there's a supporting index?
От | Andrew McMillan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why sequential scan when there's a supporting index? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1022316741.11106.547.camel@kant.mcmillan.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why sequential scan when there's a supporting index? (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why sequential scan when there's a supporting index?
|
Список | pgsql-novice |
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 02:25, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Btw, "SELECT tx_date, COUNT(*) FROM t_lane_tx GROUP BY tx_date;" > also does a Seq Scan on t_lane_tx. What's the best work-around > for this query? There is no work around for this one. In some circumstances the indexes in a PostgreSQL database will contain 'dirty' information, and so to get the correct answer in these cases PostgreSQL has to go to the real table. For my personal view I'm OK with the current behaviour. It has tradeoffs, and this is one of the negatives, but although I find myself doing this interactively quite often I only very rarely find myself doing it inside an application. Regards, Andrew. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/ PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St DDI: +64(4)916-7201 MOB: +64(21)635-694 OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267 Are you enrolled at http://schoolreunions.co.nz/ yet?
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: