Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YByKH-00040i-DH for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:16:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YByKG-0005bX-4k for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:16:00 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YByKF-0005bQ-BX for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:15:59 +0000 Received: from mx-out.zmailcloud.com ([192.198.85.98] helo=mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YByK7-0003l8-5t for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:15:57 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com (smtp.01.com [10.10.0.43]) by mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85B5564C9B; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71FE60288; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:49 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wG7F4Q817_Ss; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C576028B; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791326028A; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:49 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ESbTQAIyP0u7; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from [172.24.244.13] (wireless-nat-23-linuxconf2015.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.30.134]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C133860288; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:15:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <54B89072.3050603@agliodbs.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:15:46 +1300 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kirkwood , postgres performance list Subject: Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index References: <54B83F70.7080004@agliodbs.com> <54B85D32.7090106@catalyst.net.nz> <54B87820.3090101@catalyst.net.nz> <54B88032.7020206@catalyst.net.nz> <54B882B8.2050303@catalyst.net.nz> <54B88562.4040500@agliodbs.com> <54B88CEC.9080009@catalyst.net.nz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org > Right, I suspect that bloating is possibly the significant factor then - > can you REINDEX? Believe me, it's on the agenda. Of course, this is on a server with 90% saturated IO, so doing a repack is going to take some finessing. BTW, effective_cache_size is set to 100GB. So I suspect that it's the other issue with Tom mentioned, which is that 9.2 really doesn't take physical index size into account. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance