Re: Peculiar performance observation....
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Peculiar performance observation.... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1110822787.28555.50.camel@state.g2switchworks.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Peculiar performance observation.... ("Net Virtual Mailing Lists" <mailinglists@net-virtual.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Peculiar performance observation....
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:11, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote: > Hello, > > > I am sorry to bring this up again.... Does anyone have any idea what > might be going on here?... I'm very worried about this situation.. ;-( It looks to me like either you're not analyzing often enough, or your statistics target is too low to get a good sample. Note your estimated versus real rows are off by a factor of 70 (28 est. versus 1943 actual rows). That's a pretty big difference, and where you should be looking. > > -> Seq Scan on jobdata (cost=0.00..7567.88 rows=28 width=52) (actual > >time=11.498..4800.907 rows=1943 loops=1) Yes, this is because PostgreSQL is using an index to approximate a sequential scan, which is not a good thing since PostgreSQL can't get all the information it needs from just an index, but has to visit the table to check visibility.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: