On 14 Sep 2011, at 20:45, Brian Fehrle wrote: >> That is only about 1/30th of your table. I don't think a seqscan makes sense here unless your data is distributed badly. >> > Yeah the more I look at it, the more I think it's postgres _thinking_ that it's faster to do a seqential scan. I'll be playing with the random_page_cost that Ondrej suggested, and schedule a time where I can do some explain analyzes (production server and all). Before you do that, turn off seqscans (there's a session option for that) and see if index scans are actually faster. Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
