dforum wrote: > hello, > > there is other performance problem on this request. > > If you analyse query plan, you see that most of the time are lost during > sequencial scan, and you have 2 seq scan. > > You have to create other indexes to match the request. > > Postgresq is totally dependant on index to reach is performance. That depends a lot on your queries. Sometimes a sequential scan is a faster and better choice. It may also be faster for small tables. I've usually found that when I (for performance testing purposes) force the planner to an index scan instead of its preferred sequential scan, the query runs slower than it did with a sequential scan. Sure, there are queries that are horrifyingly slow without appropriate indexes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Pg is totally dependent on indexes to perform well. It depends a lot on the query. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
