Ben <bench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > No, the tables are recently analyzed and there are a couple hundred > thousand rows in there. But I think I just figured it out.... it's a > 3-column index, and two columns of that index are the same for every row. > When I drop those two columns from the ordering restriction, the index > gets used and things speed up 5 orders of magnitude. > Maybe the planner is smart enough to think that if a column in the order > by clause is identical for most rows, then using an index won't help.... > but not smart enough to realize that if said column is at the *end* of the > order by arguments, after columns which do sort quite well, then it should > use an index after all. You're being about as clear as mud here, except that you obviously lied about what you were doing in your first message. If you have a planner problem, show us the *exact* query, the *exact* table definition, and unfaked EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
