X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197269DC855 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:36:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24733-08 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:36:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7439DC826 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:36:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:36:52 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 10 Feb 2006 16:36:52 -0600 Subject: Re: joining two tables slow due to sequential scan From: Scott Marlowe To: Tim Jones Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <47668A1334CDBF46927C1A0DFEB223D3131315@mail.optiosoftware.com> References: <47668A1334CDBF46927C1A0DFEB223D3131315@mail.optiosoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1139611012.22740.147.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:36:52 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.158 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/116 X-Sequence-Number: 17102 On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:35, Tim Jones wrote: > OK. I'm gonna make a couple of guesses here: > > 1: clinicaldocuments.patientidentifier is an int8 and you're running > 7.4 or before. > > -- nope int4 and 8.1 > > 2: There are more rows with clinicaldocuments.patientidentifier= 123 > than with documentversions.documentstatus = 'AC'. > > -- nope generally speaking all statuses are 'AC' > > 3: documentversions.documentidentifier and > clinicaldocuments.dssdocumentidentifier are not the same type. > > -- nope both int4 OK then, I guess we'll need to see the explain analyze output of both of those queries.