MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEzWdqeGj9FcubNXegJ8PGTnXNahUhgc6T+yNFW7O12EkKR9yA@mail.gmail.com>
 <818d0359d8b629a80b55b2e068dab958fc8e0a2a.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAEzWdqfxtEzxO10Rnr0Yw+tPJMtCuu2c2e1mr6bEzuYL1U1BvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2fa62200cf92dc03dff20f8a42e45bb30fc40f35.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAEzWdqdo14MgxC_XO+ah_7r-cyEJwfenSAyve1tAeLaE+nwLZA@mail.gmail.com> <cf0bc9aabf8a47705310b7dbf8f341aae4b1849c.camel@cybertec.at>
In-Reply-To: <cf0bc9aabf8a47705310b7dbf8f341aae4b1849c.camel@cybertec.at>
From: yudhi s <learnerdatabase99@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 17:52:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEzWdqe6WwgRX4-GQHeePTUCdzHQ5-nMU0hHd9eGWV8ZS3kq0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question on execution plan and suitable index
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>, 
	Nisarg Patel <er.nisarg@gmail.com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000659d18064af003bf"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEzWdqe6WwgRX4-GQHeePTUCdzHQ5-nMU0hHd9eGWV8ZS3kq0w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000659d18064af003bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 5:22=E2=80=AFPM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec=
.at>
wrote:

> On Mon, 2026-02-16 at 16:09 +0530, yudhi s wrote:
> > I have updated the plan below. While trying to replace actual binds and
> > the objects with sample names some lines got missed initially it seems.
> >
> >
> https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/f564ac23ee35d1f0413980fe4d00efa9
>
> Thanks.
>
> Does the filter on "due_date" eliminate many rows in "orders"?  If yes,
> and an index on that column would actually perform better (which you
> could test with enable_seqscan =3D off), perhaps your "random_page_cost"
> parameter is set too high.
>
> Where you can certainly make a difference is the repeated scan on
> "event_audit_log".  An index on (request_id, event_comment_text,
> created_at)
> should speed up that part.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>

Thank you so much. Will try this one.

Regarding the composite index on (request_id, event_comment_text,
created_at) for table event_audit_log, is there any advice, which we should
follow for keeping "date column"(like column "Created_at" here) in the
indexing order (apart from the frequency of usage in the query)?

And to help the table scan of the ORDER table, should we also have
"entity_id" added to the index along with "due_date" i.e. a composite index
on (entity_id,due_date)?

Regards
Yudhi

--000000000000659d18064af003bf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 16,=
 2026 at 5:22=E2=80=AFPM Laurenz Albe &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laurenz.albe@cy=
bertec.at">laurenz.albe@cybertec.at</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid =
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, 2026-02-16 at 16:09 +0530, yudhi=
 s wrote:<br>
&gt; I have updated the plan below. While trying to replace actual binds an=
d<br>
&gt; the objects with sample=C2=A0names some lines got missed initially=C2=
=A0it seems.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/f564ac23ee35d1f041=
3980fe4d00efa9" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://gist.github.co=
m/databasetech0073/f564ac23ee35d1f0413980fe4d00efa9</a>=C2=A0<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Does the filter on &quot;due_date&quot; eliminate many rows in &quot;orders=
&quot;?=C2=A0 If yes,<br>
and an index on that column would actually perform better (which you<br>
could test with enable_seqscan =3D off), perhaps your &quot;random_page_cos=
t&quot;<br>
parameter is set too high.<br>
<br>
Where you can certainly make a difference is the repeated scan on<br>
&quot;event_audit_log&quot;.=C2=A0 An index on (request_id, event_comment_t=
ext, created_at)<br>
should speed up that part.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
Laurenz Albe<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you so much. Will tr=
y this one.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the composite index on (requ=
est_id, event_comment_text, created_at) for table event_audit_log, is there=
 any advice, which we should follow for keeping &quot;date column&quot;(lik=
e column &quot;Created_at&quot; here) in the indexing order (apart from the=
 frequency of usage in the query)?</div><div><br></div><div>And to help the=
 table scan of the ORDER table, should we also have &quot;entity_id&quot; a=
dded to the index along with &quot;due_date&quot; i.e. a composite index on=
 (entity_id,due_date)?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>Yudhi</di=
v></div></div>

--000000000000659d18064af003bf--