On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Jun-20, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I wrote: > > > ... oh, now I see: apparently, your filter condition is such that *no* > > > rows of the objectcustomfieldvalues table get past the filter: > > > > > > -> Index Scan using objectcustomfieldvalues3 on > > > objectcustomfieldvalues objectcustomfieldvalues_1 (cost=0.56..807603.40 > > > rows=915 width=4) (actual time=21165.441..21165.441 rows=0 loops=1) > > > Filter: ((disabled = 0) AND ((largecontent ~~* > > > '%958575%'::text) OR ((content)::text ~~* '%958575%'::text))) > > > Rows Removed by Filter: 19030904 > > > You said you'd increased the stats target for > > objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid, but maybe the real problem is needing > > to increase the targets for content and largecontent, in hopes of driving > > down the estimate for how many rows will pass this filter condition. > > ... but those on content and largecontent are unanchored conditions -- > are we still able to do any cardinality analysis using those? I thought > not. Maybe a trigram search would help? See contrib/pg_trgm -- as far > as I remember that module is able to work with LIKE conditions. >
Hi Alvaro, I do have a pg_trgm GIN index on those fields for the search. Regards, Ken
