Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > Turns out to be because what was provided wasn't actually what was being > > used- there's a domain in there and that seems to gum up the works and > > make it so we don't consider the partial index as being something we can > > use (see the discussion at the end of the other sub-thread). > > Some simple experiments here don't find that a domain-type column prevents > use of the partial index. So it's still not entirely clear what's > happening for the OP. I concur with Jeff's suggestion to try forcing > use of the desired index, and see whether it happens at all and what > the cost estimate is.
Once burned, twice shy, I suppose- considering we weren't given the actual DDL the first round, I'm guessing there's other differences. > I'm also wondering exactly which Postgres version this is. Also a good question. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
