* Tony Capobianco (tcapobianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > HashAggregate (cost=4391163.81..4391288.05 rows=9939 width=12) > -> Hash Join (cost=14.78..4344767.23 rows=9279316 width=12) > Hash Cond: (o.emailcampaignid = s.emailcampaignid) > -> Seq Scan on openactivity o (cost=0.00..3529930.67 > rows=192540967 width=12) > -> Hash (cost=8.79..8.79 rows=479 width=4) > -> Seq Scan on ecr_sents s (cost=0.00..8.79 rows=479 > width=4) > > Yikes. Two sequential scans. Err, isn't that more-or-less exactly what you want here? The smaller table is going to be hashed and then you'll traverse the bigger table and bounce each row off the hash table. Have you tried actually running this and seeing how long it takes? The bigger table doesn't look to be *that* big, if your i/o subsystem is decent and you've got a lot of memory available for kernel cacheing, should be quick. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
