lionel duboeuf <lionel.duboeuf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks kevin for your answer. Here is some additionnal > informations attached as files. Could you supply an EXPLAIN ANALYZE of the fast plan as an attachment, for comparison? Anyway, it looks like at least one big problem is the bad estimate on how many rows will be generated by joining to the users5_ table: > (cost=13.20..1427.83 rows=1 width=24) > (actual time=1.374..517.662 rows=122850 loops=1) If it had expected 122850 rows to qualify for that join, it probably would have picked a different plan. I just reread your original email, and I'm not sure I understand what you meant regarding VACUUM ANALYZE. If you run that right beforehand, do you still get the slow plan for user 10? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
