John A Meinel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, you probably don't want enable_seqscan=off, you should try:
> SET enable_nestloop TO off.
> The problem is that it is estimating there will only be 44 rows, but in
> reality there are 13M rows. It almost definitely should be doing a
> seqscan with a sort and merge join.

Not nestloops anyway.

> I don't understand how postgres could get the number of rows that wrong.

No stats, or out-of-date stats is the most likely bet.

> I can't figure out exactly what is where from the formatting, but the query 
> that seems misestimated is:
> ->  Index Scan using "IX_ClimateId" on "ClimateChangeModel40"  
> (cost=0.00..1063711.75 rows=265528 width=20) (actual time=28.311..17212.703 
> rows=13276368 loops=1)
>     Index Cond: ("outer"."ClimateId" = "ClimateChangeModel40"."ClimateId")

Yeah, that's what jumped out at me too.  It's not the full explanation
for the join number being so far off, but this one at least you have a
chance to fix by updating the stats on ClimateChangeModel40.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to