Tom Lane-2 wrote: > > My first suspicion > is that those are unvacuumed dead rows ... what's your vacuuming policy > on this database? > Ah, I didn't know that number included dead tuples. That probably explains it. pg_stat_user_tables says the table has 370,269 dead tuples. On this table, I have autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor set to 0.02, so I believe the table will have to have 869K dead tuples before vacuum will kick in. > I have already fixed this query by adding a better index. Tom Lane-2 wrote: > > I think the new index might have "fixed" things largely by not bothering > to index already-dead rows. > Actually, I put a partial index on status, where != 'V'. That fits our usage pattern of 99% of the records being 'V', so it's a tiny index and satisifies this type of query very quickly. Thanks, --gordon -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Crazy-looking-actual-row-count-from-explain-analyze-tp28517643p28518862.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
