Arturo Perez <aperez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Saturday I changed a table to add a varchar(24) and a TEXT column. You didn't actually say which of these tables you changed? > I'm not very good at reading these but it looks like sort memory might > be too low? The runtime seems to be entirely in the index scan on user_tracking. I'm surprised it doesn't do something to avoid a full-table indexscan --- in this case, hashing with extended_user as the inner relation would seem like the obvious thing. Is user_id a hashable datatype? It's possible that adding the columns would have affected the plan by making it look like a sort or hash would take too much memory, but if that were it then your hand increase in work_mem should have fixed it. Tis odd. I don't suppose you know what plan was used before? regards, tom lane
