Re: two queries and dual cpu (perplexed)
От | Russell Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: two queries and dual cpu (perplexed) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200504212329.06343.mr-russ@pws.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: two queries and dual cpu (perplexed) ("Shoaib Burq (VPAC)" <sab@vpac.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: two queries and dual cpu (perplexed)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:44 pm, Shoaib Burq (VPAC) wrote: > -> Nested Loop (cost=2.19..1069345.29 rows=16 width=58) (actual time=135.390..366902.373 rows=13276368 loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=2.19..1067304.07 rows=44 width=68) (actual time=107.627..186390.137 rows=13276368loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=2.19..1067038.94 rows=44 width=52) (actual time=87.255..49743.796 rows=13276368loops=1) OUCH, OUCH, OUCH. Most if not all of the time is going on nested loop joins. The tuple estimates are off by a factore of 10^6 which is meansit's chosing the wrong join type. you could set enable_seqscan to OFF; to test what he performance is like with a different plan, and then set it back on. However you really need to get the row count estimates up to something comparable. within a factor of 10 at least. A number of the other rows estimates seem to be off by a reasonable amount too. You may want to bump up the statistics onthe relevant columns. I can't find what they are from looking at that, I probably should be able too, but it's late. If you get the stats up to something near the real values, then the planner will choose a different plan, which should givea huge performance increase. Regards Russell Smith.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: