Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAA42E0068
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 02:49:38 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 20253-03-8
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 02:49:33 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAE12E009A
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 02:49:29 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m345nRVN004768;
	Fri, 4 Apr 2008 01:49:28 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Matt Klinker" <mklinker@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query plan excluding index on view 
In-reply-to: <3bda20f60804032158u4f6765e3t8b0debad3e7f5ceb@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <3bda20f60804031631j177b42e2u82b5033fd23c2293@mail.gmail.com>
	<28177.1207266621@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<3bda20f60804031654q7991de08m1254964511632acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<29828.1207271948@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<3bda20f60804032158u4f6765e3t8b0debad3e7f5ceb@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Matt Klinker" <mklinker@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:58:10 -0600"
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:49:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4767.1207288167@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200804/41
X-Sequence-Number: 29534

"Matt Klinker" <mklinker@gmail.com> writes:
> Sorry for not including this extra bit originally.  Below is the explain
> detail from both the query to the view that takes longer and then the query
> directly to the single table that performs quickly.
...
>         ->  Subquery Scan *SELECT* 1  (cost=0.00..1285922.80 rows=18384890
> width=251)
>               ->  Seq Scan on company  (cost=0.00..1102073.90 rows=18384890

The presence of a Subquery Scan node tells me that either this is a much
older PG version than you stated, or there are some interesting details
to the query that you omitted.  Please drop the fan-dance routine and
show us a complete reproducible test case.

			regards, tom lane