On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Andrew Jaimes wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am trying to run the following query:
>
> SELECT count(1) --DISTINCT l_userqueue.queueid
> FROM e_usersessions
> JOIN l_userqueue
> ON l_userqueue.userid = e_usersessions.entityid
> JOIN a_activity
> ON a_acti
On 06/05/2012 09:41 AM, Andrew Jaimes wrote:
The second query ran better than the first one:
That's what I figured. Ok, so looking back to your original message again:
CREATE INDEX i08_a_activity
ON a_activity
USING btree
(activequeueid , vstatus , ventrydate );
Based on the query here
On 06/05/2012 08:31 AM, Andrew Jaimes wrote:
the default_statistics_target is set to 200, and I have run the analyze
and reindex on these tables before writing the email.
Out of idle curiosity, how do these two variants treat you?
SELECT count(1)
FROM e_usersessions s
JOIN l_userqueue q O
gt; Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Sequencial scan in a JOIN
>
> 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 Con
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
