Re: Re: Postgres slowdown on large table joins
От | Dave Edmondson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Postgres slowdown on large table joins |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010219132350.A59633@verdi.jlc.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Postgres slowdown on large table joins (Dave Edmondson <david@jlc.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Postgres slowdown on large table joins
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:22:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Edmondson <david@jlc.net> writes: > > Ack! I just timed it at 74 seconds. > > Added two indexes, here's the query plan... it doesn't seem to be using the > > indexes at all. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong here... > > Have you done a VACUUM ANALYZE on these tables since filling them? > Are the estimated rows counts in the plan anywhere near reality? The > rows=145972 for data looks particularly fishy ... how many rows of data > do you think will match the conf_id extracted from config? > > regards, tom lane yes. I ran VACUUM ANALYZE after creating the indicies. (Actually, I VACUUM the database twice a day.) The data table literally has 145972 rows, and 145971 will match conf_id 4... which is why I'm getting the feeling that an index on conf_id in data won't actually solve the problem (after reading about what indicies actually do). I think I might just have split to the one table join into separate queries, and ignore any entries before a certain date/time... guess I'll just have to get creative for that part. :) -- David Edmondson <david@jlc.net> GMU/FA d-(--) s+: a18>? C++++$ UB++++$ P+>+++++ L- E--- W++ N- o K-> w-- O? M-(--) V? PS+ PE+ Y? PGP t 5 X R+ tv-->! b DI+++ D+ G(--) e>* h!>+ r++ y+>++ ICQ: 79043921 AIM: AbsintheXL #music,#hellven on irc.esper.net
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: