Re: Query performance discontinuity
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Query performance discontinuity |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200211131345.34038.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Query performance discontinuity (Mike Nielsen <miken@bigpond.net.au>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Mike, > Yes, I'd run a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE -- I did it again just to make sure, > and re-ran the query (similar result): > > pganalysis=> explain analyze select * from ps2 where tstart> '2000-1-1 > pganalysis'> 00:00:00' and time_stamp > '2000-1-1 00:00:00' order by > pganalysis-> tstart,time_stamp limit 59628; > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: > > Limit (cost=160313.27..160313.27 rows=59628 width=179) (actual > time=45405.47..46320.12 rows=59628 loops=1) > -> Sort (cost=160313.27..160313.27 rows=327895 width=179) (actual > time=45405.46..46248.31 rows=59629 loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on ps2 (cost=0.00..13783.40 rows=327895 width=179) > (actual time=13.52..17111.66 rows=327960 loops=1) > Total runtime: 46894.21 msec > > EXPLAIN > > Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to experiment with twiddling the > query optimizer parameters or memory -- my apologies for this, but, > well, a guy's gotta eat... Well, I''ll just concur with what others have said: for some reason, the parser is slightly underestimateing the cost of a seq scan, and dramatically overestimating the cost of an index scan, for this query. Other than tweaking to parser calculation values, I'd suggest dropping and re-building the index just for thouroughness. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: