On 27.10.2015 23:56, Bertrand Paquet wrote:
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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
Hello Bertrand once again!
What's your status? Does the plan changed after deploying three field
index ?
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
