Re: Sub-optimal plan chosen

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM, bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:56 PM, bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)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).