Re: The planner chooses seqscan+sort when there is an

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>
Cc: Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The planner chooses seqscan+sort when there is an
Date: 2006-05-03 16:01:10
Message-ID: 1146672070.14093.180.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Without a WHERE you get the whole table.
>
> A Index-Scan is, in this case, expensive.

I know that, and I would agree if I wouldn't have asked for _ordered_
result, and wouldn't have turned enable_seqscan=off.

In these conditions I would have expected an index scan, even if it is
more expensive than the sequential scan + sort. Actually I wanted to see
how expensive it thinks it is, but I can't get to that plan at all.

Thanks,
Csaba.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2006-05-03 16:05:25 Re: logfiles filling up
Previous Message Csaba Nagy 2006-05-03 15:57:58 Re: The planner chooses seqscan+sort when there is an