X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F52528AE
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:54:30 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 92920-05
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 03:54:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3955D528AA
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:54:20 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 21071 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2005 03:53:46 -0000
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:53:46 -0500
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Madison Kelly <linux@alteeve.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Index ot being used
Message-ID: <20050613035346.GA20703@wolff.to>
Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>,
	Madison Kelly <linux@alteeve.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1825.216.209.137.1.1118419819.squirrel@mail.alteeve.com>
	<20050610155535.GO8451@tobias.nordicbet.com>
	<42AC42CB.8050703@alteeve.com> <24636.1118591783@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<42ACBC95.9020404@alteeve.com> <20050613030001.GB17491@wolff.to>
	<20050613031317.GA18988@wolff.to> <42AD008D.4080600@alteeve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42AD008D.4080600@alteeve.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.008 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200506/272
X-Sequence-Number: 12909

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 23:42:05 -0400,
  Madison Kelly <linux@alteeve.com> wrote:
> 
> As you probably saw in my last reply, I went back to the old index and 
> tried the query you and Tom Lane recommended. Should this not have 
> caught the index?

Probably, but there might be some other reason the planner thought it
was better to not use it. Using indexes is not always faster.

It would help to see your latest definition of the table and indexes,
the exact query you used and explain analyze output.