Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE

Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com> writes:
> Realistically the system should choos *ANY* index over a sequential 
> table scan.

Sorry, I do not accept that.  You might as well say that we should
rip out any attempt at cost estimation, and instead put in two or
three lines of brain-dead heuristics.  If it were that simple we'd
all be using MySQL ;-)

> Above a fairly low number of records any indexed query 
> should be much faster than a seqscan.

Isn't that exactly backwards?

			regards, tom lane