Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns?
От | TJ O'Donnell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4200E8E1.6020301@acm.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns?
Re: Does indexing help >= as well as = for integer columns? |
Список | pgsql-general |
I had thought that the Creation of the Index would do something equivalent to Analyze. I tried Analyze Verbose and it improved the scanner's ability to predict when an index would be useful. Last week, I asked about visualizing B-tree "coverage". I think I meant "Can I see the histograms that Analyze creates?" Are they available anywhere? The docs mention them (bins) and I was hoping Analyze Verbose would show them to me. TJ Tom Lane wrote: > "TJ O'Donnell" <tjo@acm.org> writes: > >>This I don't get. Why is an index scan not used? Isn't an index supposed >>to help when using > < >= <= too? >>Explain Analyze Select count(smiles) from structure where _c >= 30 >>Aggregate (cost=196033.74..196033.74 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=42133.432..42133.434 rows=1 >>loops=1) >> -> Seq Scan on structure (cost=0.00..191619.56 rows=1765669 width=32) (actual >>time=8050.437..42117.062 rows=1569 loops=1) >> Filter: (_c >= 30) > > > Have you ANALYZEd the table lately? That rowcount estimate is off by > about three orders of magnitude :-( > > regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: