It is very interesting to me that the optimizer chose a parallel sequential
scan rather than an index scan on either of your indexes that start
with project_id that also reference trashed_at.
1) Are you running on SSD type storage? Has random_page_cost been lowered
to 1-1.5 or so (close to 1 assumes good cache hits)?
2) It seems you have increased parallel workers. Have you also changed the
startup or other cost configs related to how inclined the system is to use
sequential scans?
3) If you disable sequential scan, what does the plan look like for this
query? (SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN TO OFF;)
>