On 4 April 2017 at 14:07, Johann Spies <johann.spies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why would that be? To answer my own question. After experimenting a lot we found that 9.6 uses a parallel seqscan that is actually a lot faster than using the index on these large tables. This, to us was a surprise! Regards Johann -- Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself, my lips will praise you. (Psalm 63:3) -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
