| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index non-usage problem in 8.2.9 |
| Date: | 2008-09-03 03:38:20 |
| Message-ID: | 11848.1220413100@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> writes:
> Starting with a fresh database I got the same results you did, but not
> with my production table.
So, what's different between your table declaration and my toy example?
Can you force it to use the partial index by dropping the other index?
(Use begin; drop index ...; explain ...; rollback; to avoid dropping
the index for real.) It's quite unclear at this point whether it
believes it *cannot* use the partial index, or whether it just thinks
the other index is cheaper.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph S | 2008-09-03 03:51:09 | Re: Index non-usage problem in 8.2.9 |
| Previous Message | Ow Mun Heng | 2008-09-03 03:06:25 | Re: Oracle and Postgresql |