Re: Optimizing No matching record Queries

On 2008-02-12 13:35, Pallav Kalva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ...
> Table Definitions
> ============
>
> \d listing.listingstatus
>                                             Table "listing.listingstatus"
>     Column      |            Type
> |                               Modifiers
>
-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> listingstatusid | integer                     | not null default
> nextval(('listing.listingstatusseq'::text)::regclass)
> shortname       | text                        |
> longname        | text                        |
> _entrydate      | timestamp without time zone | default
> ('now'::text)::timestamp(6) without time zone
> Indexes:
>    "pk_listingstatus_listingstatusid" PRIMARY KEY, btree
> (listingstatusid), tablespace "indexdata"
>
Since you are searching by "shortname", trying adding an index on that.
Although with that tiny a table, it might not matter.

The questions are:

1. Why in the planner scanning the entire idx_listing_entrydate, when
I'd think it should be scanning the entire
pk_listingstatus_listingstatusid ?
2. Why is "Index Scan using pk_listingstatus_listingstatusid on
listingstatus listingsta1_  (cost=0.00..0.27 rows=1 width=4) (never
executed)" ?

Note:  I'm new at this as well, and jumped in to learn as well as to help.

-- Dean

--
Mail to my list address MUST be sent via the mailing list.  All other mail will bounce.