From: Martin Nickel <martin@portant.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:07:54 -0500
Message-ID: <pan.2005.10.17.13.07.53.915839@portant.com> (raw)
References: <pan.2005.10.12.20.40.22.703085@portant.com>
<4353648C.8040507@archonet.com>
Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join
From: Martin Nickel <martin@portant.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"
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: martin@portant.com
Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join
In-Reply-To: <pan.2005.10.17.13.07.53.915839@portant.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox