Message-ID: <4FCE0681.5040306@optionshouse.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:15:45 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
	rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Jaimes <andrewjaimes@hotmail.com>
CC: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Sequencial scan in a JOIN
References: <BLU161-W1125BE7D5AED110518DEFFDD0C0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU161-W1125BE7D5AED110518DEFFDD0C0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

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 
the table.

What's your default_statistics_target, and when is the last time you 
analyzed the tables in this query?

-- 
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email