Re: sub select performance due to seq scans

[H Hale <hhale21(at)rogers(dot)com>]

Tom, 
 
 It is unique. 

 Indexes:
     "flatomfilesysentry_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (objectid)
     "capsa_flatomfilesysentry_name_idx" btree (name)
 Foreign-key constraints:
     "objectid" FOREIGN KEY (objectid) REFERENCES capsa_sys.master(objectid) ON DELETE CASCADE
 
 
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: H Hale  writes:
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on flatomfilesysentry (cost=2.00..274.38 rows=3238 width=30) (actual time=0.011..0.013 rows=1 loops=6473)
>           Recheck Cond: (flatomfilesysentry.objectid = "outer".dstobj)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on flatomfilesysentry_pkey (cost=0.00..2.00 rows=3238 width=0) (actual time=0.007..0.007 rows=1 loops=6473)
>                 Index Cond: (flatomfilesysentry.objectid = "outer".dstobj)

Well, there's our estimation failure: 3238 rows expected, one row
actual.

What is the data distribution of flatomfilesysentry.objectid?
It looks from this example like it is unique or nearly so,
but the planner evidently does not think that.

   regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings