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
What's your default_statistics_target, and when is the last time you
analyzed the tables in this query?
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Jaimes||Date: 2012-06-05 13:31:19|
|Subject: Re: Sequencial scan in a JOIN|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Jaimes||Date: 2012-06-05 12:48:41|
|Subject: Sequencial scan in a JOIN|