I cannot get the problem to appear using generated data and cannot provide the real database. Given these facts, and the fact I can use the "expanded" query to get the necessary results, I am going to move on. If you want me to provide any additional information with respect to this behavior using my live data just let me know and I'll try and do what I can. BTW, for the test case I used all the same tables that are referenced in the two views but with many of the non-key attributes removed. I then loaded 10,000+ records into the relevant tables and ran the explains. David J. -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Lane Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 12:33 AM To: David Johnston Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Index Ignored Due To Use Of View "David Johnston" <polobo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Now, if I simply replace the original FROM clause with the view > definition (i.e., SELECT * FROM (SELECT ... ) alias WHERE ) I get: > [ a different plan ] > I now have index scans on both "filetaskinstance" and "filereference" > - but all I appeared to do is the same as what rule re-writing should have done. If you really just manually plugged in the view definition, then yeah you should have gotten the same results. Could we see a complete test case? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
