On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:42:00PM +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote: > OK, maybe that's the point... the "cost bust" given to the sequential > scan by enable_seqscan=off is not enough in this case to exceed the cost > of the index scan ? The table is quite big, might be possible. I still > wonder why would be seqscan+sort faster than index scan... the sort will > for sure have to write to disk too given the size of the table... Have you tuned the values of effective_cache_size and random_page_cost? These have significant effects on index scans. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
