Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XXZZk-0004Rj-3S for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:45:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XXZZj-0005L1-6s for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:44:59 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XXZZf-0005E3-PQ for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:44:55 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XXZZc-0001pD-Et for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:44:53 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8QHidRS008044; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:44:40 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: marko@joh.to cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used In-reply-to: <20140926080211.7639.68358@wrigleys.postgresql.org> References: <20140926080211.7639.68358@wrigleys.postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to marko@joh.to message dated "Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:02:11 -0000" Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:44:39 -0400 Message-ID: <8043.1411753479@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-bugs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org marko@joh.to writes: > PostgreSQL version: 9.1.12 > We've been observing a performance problem where a PRIMARY KEY index is not > being used. The problem looks like this: In 9.2 and again in 9.3, we significantly changed the planner's modeling of index access costs, with a view towards making better choices when there are multiple plausible indexes to use. If you can reproduce this misbehavior in 9.3 or later it would be worth looking into; but we're not going to change 9.1's estimation rules at this late date. People running on back branches tend to want plan stability in my experience. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs