"Gregory Stark" <stark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > "Reg Me Please" <regmeplease@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> -> Seq Scan on tt_elem (cost=0.00..29.40 rows=1940 width=8) >> (actual time=0.012..0.013 rows=1 loops=1) > > The discrepancy etween the estimated rows and actual rows makes me think > you've not analyzed this table in a long time. It's probably best to analyze > the whole database to have a consistent set of statistics and to catch any > other old table stats. > > There could be other misestimations based due to Postgres limitations but > first fix the out of date stats and re-post both plans. Actually it's pretty clear there are some other bad estimations as well. You should send along the view definition too. And I would recommend you try it with a normal JOIN ON/USING instead of the NATURAL JOIN. It's possible it's joining on some unexpected columns -- though that doesn't really look like it's the case here. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
