Douglas Alan <darkwater42@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > As I said, in my original post, Postgres's approach would be completely > reasonable in this case,* if* the rows that it was looking for were > sprinkled randomly throughout the table. But they're *not* in this case -- > they're all at the end. There's been some talk of penalizing the seqscan+limit combination (perhaps by increasing the estimated start cost for the seqscan) if the WHERE clause involves any variables that have a correlation stat significantly different from zero. But nobody's done the legwork to see if this would really be useful or what an appropriate penalty curve might be. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
