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 394019DCAA6 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:35:51 -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 25182-04 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:35:53 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 00:29:11.528226 by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.optiosoftware.com (mail.optio.com [192.216.93.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9709DC9E1 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:35:48 -0400 (AST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: joining two tables slow due to sequential scan Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:35:50 -0500 Message-ID: <47668A1334CDBF46927C1A0DFEB223D3131315@mail.optiosoftware.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] joining two tables slow due to sequential scan Thread-Index: AcYukHEdLtCc4c6BRJuxo6jR64+RfAAAcx3w From: "Tim Jones" To: "Scott Marlowe" Cc: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.096 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096] X-Spam-Score: 0.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/115 X-Sequence-Number: 17101 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=3D 123 than with documentversions.documentstatus =3D 'AC'. -- nope generally speaking all statuses are 'AC' 3: documentversions.documentidentifier and clinicaldocuments.dssdocumentidentifier are not the same type. -- nope both int4 Any of those things true?