| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "John Surcombe" <John(dot)Surcombe(at)digimap(dot)gg> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planner wrongly shuns multi-column index for select .. order by col1, col2 limit 1 |
| Date: | 2011-03-13 16:24:41 |
| Message-ID: | 26708.1300033481@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"John Surcombe" <John(dot)Surcombe(at)digimap(dot)gg> writes:
> When we 'EXPLAIN' this query, PostgreSQL says it is using the index
> idx_receiveddatetime. The way the application is designed means that in
> virtually all cases the query will have to scan a very long way into
> idx_receiveddatetime to find the first record where userid = 311369000.
> If however we delete the idx_receiveddatetime index, the query uses the
> idx_userid_receiveddatetime index, and the query only takes a few
> milliseconds.
That's just bizarre ... it knows the index is applicable, and the cost
estimates clearly favor the better index, so why did it pick the worse
one?
I tried to duplicate this locally, without success, so there's some
contributing factor you've neglected to mention. Can you put together a
self-contained test case that acts like this?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | runner | 2011-03-13 16:36:26 | Re: Tuning massive UPDATES and GROUP BY's? |
| Previous Message | Jeremy | 2011-03-13 12:21:47 | Re: Planner wrongly shuns multi-column index for select .. order by col1, col2 limit 1 |