From: | Lucas Possamai <drum(dot)lucas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unused indexes - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
Date: | 2016-05-10 21:17:17 |
Message-ID: | CAE_gQfX+90LQZqejgEWaLTAChLWuZia42_xEXaNB=9GhVmKqrw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
>
> Sorry, I was too busy looking at the content.
>
> Has the size / # rows changed recently? If the planner thinks it can load
> all the rows faster, it will use a seqscan regardless if you have an index.
>
> If that is the case, you can force index use by doing a
>
> SET enable_seqscan = off
>
> before executing the query.
>
Hmm... ok... but the situation is:
1 - I dropped the index
2 - Found a very slow query
3 - The "WHERE" clause was using the index that I've just dropped
4 - I ran the query in my test environment (Same DB as prod) with explain
analyze to see if the query was indeed using the index I've dropped
5 - Yes, the query was using the index
6 - re-created the index
7 - The total time went from 2000ms to 200ms
So, I don't think the index was indeed not being used.
I believe the stats are not working, just don't know how to confirm that,
as I have nothing on my logs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2016-05-10 21:20:14 | Re: Unused indexes - PostgreSQL 9.2 |
Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2016-05-10 21:13:50 | Re: Unused indexes - PostgreSQL 9.2 |