Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:47:19 -0800 (PST)
From: jugnooken <ken@jugnoo.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1391046439075-5789624.post@n5.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <9852.1391037355@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1391030357379-5789581.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <9852.1391037355@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: WHERE with ORDER not using the best index
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Thank you so much for the prompt reply, Tom. The index is actually fairly new
- but to be safe I issued REINDEX TABLE so that they are all clean. Here are
the sizes of each index right after REINDEX.

db=> select
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('index_social_feed_feed_items_on_social_feed_id_and_posted_at'));
 pg_size_pretty
----------------
 149 MB
(1 row)

db=> select
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('index_social_feed_feed_items_on_social_feed_id'));
 pg_size_pretty
----------------
 106 MB
(1 row)

Unfortunately, pg still thinks using
index_social_feed_feed_items_on_social_feed_id is faster although they are
about the same size :(. Any idea?

Regards,
Ken


--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/WHERE-with-ORDER-not-using-the-best-index-tp5789581p5789624.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance