On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM, bricklen <brick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:56 PM, bricklen <brick...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> bricklen <brick...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Is there any other data I can provide to shed some light on this? >> >> >> >> The table and index definitions? >> >> >> >> The straight indexscan would probably win if the index column order >> >> were ofid, date instead of date, ofid. I can't tell if you have >> >> any other queries for which the existing column order is preferable, >> >> though. >> >> >> >> regards, tom lane >> > >> > >> > Changing the order of the WHERE predicates didn't help. >> >> He's talking about the index definition, not the WHERE clause. The >> order of the WHERE clause is totally irrelevant. >> >> > Ah, sorry, missed that. > I just created a new index as Tom said, and the query *does* use the new index (where ofid precedes date in the definition).
