Thanks a lot! I will have a look On Tue, May 22, 2018, 11:53 PM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:51:44AM -0700, pavan95 wrote: > > Please find the output of explain(analyze,buffers) for the whole query in > > the below link. > > > Seq Scan on res_users users (cost=750.92..1,836.69 rows=249 width=15) > (actual time=3.962..17.544 rows=67 loops=1) > > Not sure but would you try creating an index on: > res_users.res_employee_id > > > Seq Scan on res_users user1 (cost=0.00..58.03 rows=1,303 width=15) > (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=1 loops=1) > > Also the planner's estimate for table:res_users is off by 1300x..so you > should > probably vacuum analyze it then recheck. I don't think we know what > version > postgres you have, but last week's patch releases include a fix which may > be > relevant (reltuples including dead tuples). > > Also I don't know the definition of this table or its indices: > tms_workflow_history > > ..but it looks like an additional or modified index or maybe clustering the > table on existing index might help (active? is_final_approver?) > Or maybe this should be 3 separate indices rather than composite index? > Perhaps some of those could be BRIN indices, depending on postgres version > > Justin >
