| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | yudhi s <learnerdatabase99(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Nisarg Patel <er(dot)nisarg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on execution plan and suitable index |
| Date: | 2026-02-16 11:52:20 |
| Message-ID: | cf0bc9aabf8a47705310b7dbf8f341aae4b1849c.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2026-02-16 at 16:09 +0530, yudhi s wrote:
> I have updated the plan below. While trying to replace actual binds and
> the objects with sample names some lines got missed initially it seems.
>
> https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/f564ac23ee35d1f0413980fe4d00efa9
Thanks.
Does the filter on "due_date" eliminate many rows in "orders"? If yes,
and an index on that column would actually perform better (which you
could test with enable_seqscan = off), perhaps your "random_page_cost"
parameter is set too high.
Where you can certainly make a difference is the repeated scan on
"event_audit_log". An index on (request_id, event_comment_text, created_at)
should speed up that part.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | yudhi s | 2026-02-16 12:22:32 | Re: Question on execution plan and suitable index |
| Previous Message | Pierre Barre | 2026-02-16 11:06:56 | Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance |