Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96DD64FD38 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:53:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62687-02 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:53:34 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF8364FDB3 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:53:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so500745nfi.23 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.19.4 with SMTP id 4mr1437139ebs.172.1225443209959; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxford.xeocode.com.enterprisedb.com ([87.127.95.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g11sm1184401gve.8.2008.10.31.01.53.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:53:28 -0700 (PDT) To: Tom Lane Cc: Jeff Frost , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Index usage problem on 8.3.3 In-Reply-To: <18581.1225421498@sss.pgh.pa.us> (Tom Lane's message of "Thu\, 30 Oct 2008 22\:51\:38 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+imap.gmail.com:PG" 93822) References: <490A4EBE.9030804@frostconsultingllc.com> <13272.1225413116@sss.pgh.pa.us> <490A56C1.8020804@frostconsultingllc.com> <14519.1225415657@sss.pgh.pa.us> <490A5DCB.9060403@frostconsultingllc.com> <14766.1225416478@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15839.1225418158@sss.pgh.pa.us> <490A71BD.7070303@frostconsultingllc.com> <18581.1225421498@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Gregory Stark Organization: EnterpriseDB Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:53:26 +0000 Message-ID: <87bpx19md5.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/147 X-Sequence-Number: 31728 Tom Lane writes: > Jeff Frost writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Huh. That does sound like it's a version-to-version difference. >>> There's nothing in the CVS log that seems related though. Are you >>> willing to post your test case? >>> >> It's a customer DB, so I'll contact them and see if we can boil it down >> to a test case with no sensitive data. > > Well, if there was a change it seems to have been in the right direction > ;-) so this is mostly just idle curiosity. Don't jump through hoops to > get a test case. Assuming it's not a bug... -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!