Hmm - looking at it, this seems the case. Directly querying the
partition it uses the index but estimates a cost of:
cost=0.00..23510.68 rows=575532 width=8907)
The seq-scan says it has a cost of:
cost=0.00..20737.15 rows=575532 width=8907
Could you issue "set enable_seqscan=off" and then show explain analyse
on the second query again?
That doesn't make a big difference:
Limit (cost=23365451.30..23365453.80 rows=1000 width=13436)
-> Sort (cost=23365451.30..23366890.13 rows=575533 width=13436)
Sort Key: this_.id
-> Result (cost=0.00..23313.51 rows=575533 width=13436)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23313.51 rows=575533 width=13436)
-> Index Scan using call_source_cdr_index on call_sources this_ (cost=0.00..4.82 rows=1 width=13436)
Index Cond: (cdr_id = 10554)
-> Index Scan using call_source_10554_cdr_index on call_sources_10554 this_ (cost=0.00..23308.68 rows=575532 width=8907)
Index Cond: (cdr_id = 10554)
IMHO the problem is that this should not be done:
-> Sort (cost=23365451.30..23366890.13 rows=575533 width=13436)
Sort Key: this_.id
because there is an index on the id column of the inherited table, so it
should be used as it is when querying the inherited table directly:
-> Index Scan using call_source_10554_id_index on call_sources_10554 this_ (cost=0.00..23510.68 rows=575532 width=8907)
Filter: (cdr_id = 10554)
