From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mike Broers <mbroers@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: query against single partition uses index, against master table does seq scan
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:25:15 -0400
Message-ID: <27195.1474561515@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB9893gw+D4dV_5MaytuXVYS6CjjjnVjD88duR_TPkYr_3ijzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB9893h=eDDHZ9m-0ENPQzqVdqjWBHhmiVCpfSZK7oUZVYHfXw@mail.gmail.com>
<24073.1474510287@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAB9893gw+D4dV_5MaytuXVYS6CjjjnVjD88duR_TPkYr_3ijzQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Mike Broers <mbroers@gmail.com> writes:
> This is 9.5, sorry I didnt mention that in the initial post.
Hmm, that's odd then.
> I am guessing the issue is that the secondary non-indexed criteria is a
> search through a jsonb column?
Doubt it; it should have considered the plan you are thinking of anyway.
Maybe it did, but threw it away on some bogus cost estimate. If you could
produce a self-contained test case, I'd be willing to take a look.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mbroers@gmail.com
Subject: Re: query against single partition uses index, against master table does seq scan
In-Reply-To: <27195.1474561515@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox