On 12/30/2015 2:39 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> writes:
>>> On 12/30/2015 2:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Maybe something weird about the build you're using? What does
>>>> pg_config print?
>>
>>> [ output ]
>>
>> No smoking gun there either.
>>
>> It might be worthwhile to update to 9.3.10, just in case there is
>> something wonky about this particular build you've got. But I'm
>> starting to get the feeling that you may not get an answer short
>> of tracing through gincostestimate to see where it's going nuts.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>
> The entire database is 78Gig, would you expect a "vacuum analyze" to fix
> it? I never run it.
>
Ok, I can reproduce this now. The full vacuum analyze isn't needed.
If I drop and recreate the table it goes back to preferring table scan.
I can "analyze search" and it still table scans.
But once I "vacuum analyze search", then it starts index scanning.
-Andy
