I don't think a BRIN index would help in either case. BRIN just marks each page with a max and min boundaries which are helpful in where clauses and has nothing to do with ordering.
For the first operation i.e Max a btree index would do an index scan backward which is just an index lookup in reverse and for order by it can use the index as well since a btree index is ordered by default. That is the reason why it switches to a sequential scan since there is no way for a BRIN index to be used in the case of a max / order by. On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ivan Voras <ivo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a table of around 20 G, more than 220 million records, and I'm > running this query on it: > > explain analyze SELECT MAX(id) - (SELECT id FROM expl_transactions WHERE > dateAdded < (now() - INTERVAL '10 MINUTES') ORDER BY dateAdded DESC LIMIT > 1) FROM expl_transactions; > > "id" is SERIAL, "dateAdded" is timestamp without timezone > > The "dateAdded" field also has a "default now()" applied to it some time > after its creation, and a fair amount of null values in the records (which > I don't think matters for this query, but maybe I'm wrong). > > My first idea is to create a default BRIN index on dateAdded since the > above query is not run frequently. To my surprise, the planner refused to > use the index and used sequential scan instead. When I forced sequential > scanning off, I got this: > > https://explain.depesz.com/s/W8oo > > The query was executing for 40+ seconds. It seems like the "index scan" on > it returns nearly 9% of the table, 25 mil rows. Since the data in > dateAdded actually is sequential and fairly selective (having now() as the > default over a long period of time), this surprises me. > > With a normal btree index, of course, it runs fine: > > https://explain.depesz.com/s/TB5 > > > Any ideas? > > -- Regards, Madusudanan.B.N <http://madusudanan.com>
