On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm confused. Your examples show the planner correctly estimating the
> indexscan as much cheaper than the seqscan.
>...
> Cut-and-paste mistake here somewhere, perhaps? The plan refers to fact
> not fact_by_dat.
My apologies... It was indeed doing the right thing on the table that was
ordered by date.
Sorry for the wasted bandwidth.
Ron