On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:33:08PM +0900, James Russell wrote:
> Reading about this issue further in the FAQ, it seems that I should ensure
> that Postgres has adequate and accurate information about the tables in
> question by regularly running VACUUM ANALYZE, something I don't do
> currently.
Ma
Reading about this issue further in the FAQ, it seems that I should
ensure that Postgres has adequate and accurate information about the
tables in question by regularly running VACUUM ANALYZE, something I
don't do currently.
Well then you'll get rubbish performance always in PostgreSQL...
I s
[Sorry, my last reply didn't go to the list]
Reading about this issue further in the FAQ, it seems that I should
ensure that Postgres has adequate and accurate information about the
tables in question by regularly running VACUUM ANALYZE, something I don't do currently.
I disabled SeqScan as per
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:29:51PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Any ideas?
>
> What does explain analyze say?
Also, have the tables been vacuumed and analyzed?
--
Michael Fuhr
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Explaining:
Hash Join (cost=337.93..1267.54 rows=180 width=35)
Hash Cond: ("outer".message_id = "inner".message_id)
-> Seq Scan on message_meta_data (cost=0.00..739.19 rows=37719 width=30)
-> Hash (cost=337.79..337.79 rows=57 width=13)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..337.79 rows=57 width=
Hi there,
I'm running a simple query with 2 inner joins (say A, B and C). Each of
the join columns has indexes. If I run queries that join just A and B,
or just B and C, postgres uses indexes. But if I run "A join B join C"
then the "B join C" part starts using a sequential scan and I can't
figure
