From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Jaimes <andrewjaimes(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sequencial scan in a JOIN |
Date: | 2012-06-05 13:15:45 |
Message-ID: | 4FCE0681.5040306@optionshouse.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 06/05/2012 07:48 AM, Andrew Jaimes wrote:
> ' -> Hash Join (cost=10.93..99795.09 rows=242803 width=0) (actual
> time=0.541..2249.027 rows=33 loops=1)'
> ' Hash Cond: ((a_activity.activequeueid = l_userqueue.queueid)
> AND (a_activity.sbuid = e_usersessions.sbuid))'
> ' -> Seq Scan on a_activity (cost=0.00..88462.52 rows=1208167
> width=22) (actual time=0.010..1662.142
I'd be willing to bet your stats are way, way off. It expected 242,803
rows in the hash, but only got 33. In that kind of scenario, I could
easily see the planner choosing a sequence scan over an index scan, as
doing that many index seeks would be much more expensive than scanning
the table.
What's your default_statistics_target, and when is the last time you
analyzed the tables in this query?
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Jaimes | 2012-06-05 13:31:19 | Re: Sequencial scan in a JOIN |
Previous Message | Andrew Jaimes | 2012-06-05 12:48:41 | Sequencial scan in a JOIN |