| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nicolas Seinlet <nicolas(at)seinlet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: More records after sort |
| Date: | 2021-07-20 17:07:43 |
| Message-ID: | 485659.1626800863@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Nicolas Seinlet <nicolas(at)seinlet(dot)com> writes:
> Many thanks for the fast response. The full query plan is below, and the Dalibo link points to it as well. You're right, it's a merge join. One table doesn't have up-to-date statistics, because the table is filled during the transaction involving this query.
Sure looks like incorporating an ANALYZE into the transaction would help
matters. This misestimation:
> -> Seq Scan on account_invoice_line il (cost=0.00..9885.48 rows=752 width=22) (actual time=0.049..121.238 rows=150448 loops=1)
> Filter: (display_type IS NULL)
looks like it's really hurting you, and "ANALYZE account_invoice_line"
after loading that table ought to be enough to fix that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-07-20 21:33:07 | Re: Have I found an interval arithmetic bug? |
| Previous Message | Nicolas Seinlet | 2021-07-20 15:07:27 | Re: More records after sort |