| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: index usage on queries on inherited tables |
| Date: | 2011-04-29 22:53:48 |
| Message-ID: | B4595D4D-13FE-4B75-B5E0-12D340AEECAC@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Apr 27, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 04:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> In the first case, PostgreSQL evidently thinks that using the indexes
>> will be slower than just ignoring them. You could find out whether
>> it's right by trying it with enable_seqscan=off.
>
> My point is that this is just a problem with inherited tables. It
> should be obvious to postgres that few rows are being returned, but in
> the inherited tables case it doesn't use indexes. This was just an
> example. In a 52 gig table I have a "select id from table limit 1 order
> by id desc" returns instantly, but as soon as you declare a child table
> it tries to seq scan all the tables.
Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood. As Greg says, this is fixed in 9.1.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-29 23:00:23 | Re: Performance |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-04-29 22:03:29 | Re: Performance |