From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Reg Me Please" <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Scott Ribe" <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com>, "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PGSQL 8.3.5] Use of a partial indexes |
Date: | 2008-12-30 14:12:33 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10812300612m5d02e4baqf9c8f40266fa4875@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Reg Me Please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Only one question remains in my mind:
>
> why the planner is not using the partial index?
>
> The partial index is covering 2 predicates out of the 3 used in the where
> condition. Actually there is a boolean flag (to exclude "disabled" rows),
> a timestamp (for row age) and an int8 (a FK to another table).
> The first two are in the partial index in order to exclude "disabled" and
> older rows. The int8 is the "random" key I mentioned earlier.
>
> So the WHERE condition reads like:
>
> flag AND tstz >= '2008-01-01'::timestamptz and thekey=42
>
> I can see in the EXPLAIN that there is no mention to the partial index.
> Please keep in mind that the table has 8+M rows, few of which are flagged,
> about 70% don't match the age limit and few dozens match the key.
> In my opinion the partial index should help a lot.
Can you show us the DDL for the index creation and the select query as well?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | justin | 2008-12-30 14:18:36 | Re: [PGSQL 8.3.5] Use of a partial indexes |
Previous Message | Bhujbal, Santosh | 2008-12-30 12:28:38 | postgres block_size problem |