From: | "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 9.5alpha1: Partial index not used |
Date: | 2015-08-01 16:04:30 |
Message-ID: | 20150801160429.GA18043@hjp.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2015-07-31 20:03:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> writes:
> > Consider this table:
> > ...
> > "concept_start_idx" btree (start) WHERE start IS NOT NULL
>
> > and this query:
>
> > select id as IdValue, canonicalname as Description, null as IsLeaf from public.concept where start;
>
> > Clearly this should be able to use the partial index (if start is true
> > it is also not null)
>
> As you surmise, there's no proof rule for that.
>
> > and since there are only 3 out of 3 million rows in result it would
> > also be beneficial (and PostgreSQL 9.1 did use the index).
>
> ... and there wasn't in 9.1 either. I get a seqscan from examples like
> this in every branch back to 8.3, which is as far back as I can test
> conveniently.
This is weird. I do remember that I tested various indexes until I found
one which was actually used on the development server (which was 9.1 at
the time and upgraded to 9.5 recently). However, on the test system
(still on 9.1) I can't get postgres to use the index either.
So I must assume that I'm either completely misremembering or that I
changed the index after that for some reason I don't remember.
Sorry, my bad.
> Only the last case produces use of the index. I agree that it'd be better
> if they all did, but I'm disinclined to consider it a bug fix unless you
> can show a specific case in which there's a performance regression from
> older releases.
"grossly incorrect plan choices are cause for a bug report" (from
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/indexes-partial.html) ;-)
Yeah, not a regression, and even though I consider that "grossly
incorrect", not high on my priority list (since the "workaround" is
arguably "more correct" in my case). So please consider it a feature
request instead of a bug report.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I want to forget all about both belts and
|_|_) | | suspenders; instead, I want to buy pants
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | that actually fit.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- http://noncombatant.org/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ing.milagrosma | 2015-08-01 16:58:05 | BUG #13531: Error de Concetividad |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-01 04:11:55 | Re: BUG #13530: sort receives "unexpected out-of-memory situation during sort" |