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
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Mike Broers <mbroers@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:09:12 -0500"
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:25:15 -0400
Message-ID: <27195.1474561515@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

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