Tuan -- > > Thanks for your help. > I create index on channel_id and data_id like your comment. ... <...> > > explain analyze select d.data_id, d.table_name, d.event_type, d.row_data, d.pk_data, d.old_data, d.create_time, d.trigger_hist_id, d.channel_id, d.transaction_id, > d.source_node_id, d.external_data, '' from sym_data d inner join sym_data_gap g on g.status='GP' and d.data_id between g.start_id and g.end_id where > d.channel_id='sale_transaction' order by d.data_id asc; > > Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1512979014.35 rows=26268463088 width=1401) (actual time=25741.704..7650979.311 rows=2764140 loops=1) > -> Index Scan using idx_d_channel_id3 on sym_data d (cost=0.00..1781979.40 rows=3117384 width=1401) (actual time=83.718..55126.002 rows=3124631 loops=1) > -> Index Scan using sym_data_gap_pkey on sym_data_gap g (cost=0.00..358.37 rows=8426 width=8) (actual time=2.428..2.429 rows=1 loops=3124631) > Index Cond: ((d.data_id >= g.start_id) AND (d.data_id <= g.end_id)) > Filter: (g.status = 'GP'::bpchar) > Total runtime: 7651803.073 ms > > But query performance don't change. > Please help me. Did you run an analyze on the table after building the new indexes ? The row estimates seem to be off wildly, although that may be a symptom of something else and not related, it is worth ruling out the easily tried. HTH, Greg Williamson -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
