From: | Martin Nickel <martin(at)portant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sequential scan on FK join |
Date: | 2005-10-17 13:07:54 |
Message-ID: | pan.2005.10.17.13.07.53.915839@portant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join
From: Martin Nickel <martin(at)portant(dot)com>
Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:53:35 -0500
Richard, here's the EXPLAIN ANALYZE. I see your point re: the 2.7M
expected vs the 2 actual, but I've run ANALYZE on the lead table and it
hasn't changed the plan. Suggestions?
"Hash Join (cost=62.13..2001702.55 rows=2711552 width=20) (actual
time=40.659..244709.315 rows=2 125270 loops=1)" " Hash Cond:
("outer".mailing_id = "inner".mailing_id)" " -> Seq Scan on lead l
(cost=0.00..1804198.60 rows=34065260 width=8) (actual
time=8.621..180281.094 rows=34060373 loops=1)" " -> Hash
(cost=61.22..61.22 rows=362 width=20) (actual time=28.718..28.718 rows=0
loops=1)" " -> Index Scan using mailing_maildate_idx on mailing m
(cost=0.00..61.22 rows=362 width=20) (actual time=16.571..27.793 rows=430
loops=1)" " Index Cond: ((maildate >= '2005-07-01'::date) AND
(maildate < '2005-08-01'::date))" "Total runtime: 248104.339 ms"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-10-17 17:43:13 | Re: tsearch2/GIST performance factors? |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-10-17 08:45:00 | Re: Sequential scan on FK join |