Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF1763271A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:49:43 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 95894-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:49:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from is.rice.edu (is.rice.edu [128.42.42.24])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6966325C0
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:49:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by is.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C8C4181C;
	Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:52:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: from is.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (it.is.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 05819-01; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:51:58 -0600 (CST)
Received: by is.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 18612)
	id DED8A41819; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:51:57 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:51:57 -0600
From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Kevin Kempter <kevink@consistentstate.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: partitioned tables query not using indexes
Message-ID: <20100228215157.GA14613@it.is.rice.edu>
References: <201002240736.36341.kevink@consistentstate.com>
	<4B8AD21A.2020904@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B8AD21A.2020904@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.2.1 at is.rice.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.443 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201002/401
X-Sequence-Number: 37822

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:29:14PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> > However the same query against the base table when specifying the check 
> > constraint key in the where clause produces sequential scans:
> 
> Does the "master" table have the same indexes as the slave partitions?
> 
> --Josh Berkus
> 
Does this help? I have an empty base table without indexes and partitions
underneath that do have the index. I did not think that an index on the
parent table did anything.

Cheers,
Ken