On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:20:10PM -0700, Michael Lewis wrote: > It is very interesting to me that the optimizer chose a parallel sequential > scan rather than an index scan on either of your indexes that start > with project_id that also reference trashed_at. Maybe because of low correlation on any of those columns? https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Query_Questions#Statistics:_n_distinct.2C_MCV.2C_histogram SELECT (SELECT sum(x) FROM unnest(most_common_freqs) x) frac_MCV, tablename, attname, inherited, null_frac, n_distinct, array_length(most_common_vals,1) n_mcv, array_length(histogram_bounds,1) n_hist, correlation FROM pg_stats WHERE tablename='subscriptions' AND attname IN ('project_id','tags') ORDER BY 1 DESC; Maybe clustering the table on project_id (and ANALYZEing) would help, but that might need to be done consistently. Michael previously suggested partitioning which, if done on project_id, would then no longer need to be specially CLUSTERed. Is the plan for the fast query the same as in August ? https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFvCgN4UijKTYiOF61Tyd%2BgHvF_oqnMabatS9%2BDcX%2B_PK2SHRw%40mail.gmail.com Justin
