Re: Odd behaviour -- Index scan vs. seq. scan
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Odd behaviour -- Index scan vs. seq. scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0309160655350.4036-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Odd behaviour -- Index scan vs. seq. scan (Adam Kavan <akavan@cox.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Adam Kavan wrote: > > > > > explain delete from game where gameid = 1000; > > Index Scan using game_pkey on game (cost=0.00..3.14 rows=1 width=6) > > > > explain delete from game where gameid < 1000; > > Seq Scan on game (cost=0.00..4779.50 rows=200420 width=6) > > > > explain delete from game where gameid between 1000 and 2000; > > Index Scan using game_pkey on game (cost=0.00..3.15 rows=1 width=6) > > > > > >How's that possible? Is it purposely done like this, or > >is it a bug? (BTW, Postgres version is 7.2.3) > > > Postgres thinks that for the = line there will only be 1 row so t uses an > index scan. Same thing for the between. However it thinks that there are > 200420 rows below 1000 and decides a seq scan would be faster. You can run > EXPLAIN ANALYZE to see if its guesses are correct. You can also try SET > enable_seqscan = FALSE; to see if it is faster doing an index scan. If it > is faster to do an index scan edit your postgres.conf file and lower the > cost for a random tuple, etc. Before you do that you might wanna issue this command: alter table game alter column gameid set statistics 100; analyze game; and see what you get.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: