Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Louis-David Mitterrand <vindex@apartia.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-04-17T13:55:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes: > If the DBA notices that there is a problem with a query, he adds an > index, he notices that there is no difference, then he notices that > PostgreSQL is not using his index. First and foremost he gets mad at > PostgreSQL for not using his index. If PostgreSQL decided to use an > index which increases execution time, the DBA would delete the > index. I don't buy that argument at all. It might be a unique index that he must have in place for data integrity reasons. It might be an index that he needs for a *different* query. If the table has more than one index available that might be usable with a particular query, how does your argument help? It doesn't. We still have to trust to statistics and cost estimates. So I intend to proceed on the path of improving the estimator, not in the direction of throwing it out in favor of rules-of-thumb. regards, tom lane