"Bill Moran" <wmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > In response to Matthew <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Pablo Alcaraz wrote: >> > it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset >> > on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full >> > scan. >> >> You mean: Be able to tell Postgres "Don't ever do a sequential scan of >> this table. It's silly. I would rather the query failed than have to wait >> for a sequential scan of the entire table." >> >> Yes, that would be really useful, if you have huge tables in your >> database. > > Is there something wrong with: > set enable_seqscan = off > ? This does kind of the opposite of what you would actually want here. What you want is that if you give it a query which would be best satisfied by a sequential scan it should throw an error since you've obviously made an error in the query. What this does is it forces such a query to use an even *slower* method such as a large index scan. In cases where there isn't any other method it goes ahead and does the sequential scan anyways. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
