Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Turns out to be because what was provided wasn't actually what was being
> > used- there's a domain in there and that seems to gum up the works and
> > make it so we don't consider the partial index as being something we can
> > use (see the discussion at the end of the other sub-thread).
>
> Some simple experiments here don't find that a domain-type column prevents
> use of the partial index. So it's still not entirely clear what's
> happening for the OP. I concur with Jeff's suggestion to try forcing
> use of the desired index, and see whether it happens at all and what
> the cost estimate is.
Once burned, twice shy, I suppose- considering we weren't given the
actual DDL the first round, I'm guessing there's other differences.
> I'm also wondering exactly which Postgres version this is.
Also a good question.
Thanks,
Stephen
