So, Tonight, the index on the three field is used, may be my yesterday vacuum updated stats.
Thx you for your help. Regards, Bertrand 2015-10-27 18:33 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Paquet <bertrand.paq...@doctolib.fr>: > Hi tom, > > I did the test yesterday with an index on the three fields, and with a > partial index on organization and status and where is null condition on > handled. I saw no modification on query plan. > May be I forgot to analyze vacuum after. I will retry tonight. > > I use a btree index. Is it the good solution, even with the In clause ? > > Regards, > > Bertrand > > Le mardi 27 octobre 2015, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> a écrit : > >> Bertrand Paquet <bertrand.paq...@doctolib.fr> writes: >> > We have a slow query. After analyzing, the planner decision seems to be >> > discutable : the query is faster when disabling seqscan. See below the >> two >> > query plan, and an extract from pg_stats. >> >> > Any idea about what to change to help the planner ? >> >> Neither one of those plans is very good: you're just hoping that the >> Filter condition will let a tuple through sooner rather than later. >> >> If you care about the performance of this type of query, I'd consider >> creating an index on (organization_id, status, handled_by) so that all >> the conditions can be checked in the index. >> >> regards, tom lane >> >
