Re: Performance problem on RH7.1
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance problem on RH7.1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 24415.1088488344@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance problem on RH7.1 (Együd Csaba <csegyud@vnet.hu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance problem on RH7.1
|
Список | pgsql-general |
=?iso-8859-2?Q?Egy=FCd_Csaba?= <csegyud@vnet.hu> writes: > Limit (cost=30.28..30.28 rows=1 width=58) (actual time=0.19..0.19 rows=1 > loops=1) > -> Sort (cost=30.28..30.30 rows=7 width=58) (actual time=0.18..0.18 > rows=2 loops=1) > Sort Key: stockid, productid, changeid, date, "time" > -> Index Scan using t_stockchanges_fullindex on t_stockchanges > (cost=0.00..30.18 rows=7 width=58) (actual time=0.04..0.08 rows=6 loops=1) > Index Cond: ((stockid = 1) AND (productid = 234) AND (changeid > = 1) AND (date <= '2004.06.29'::bpchar)) > Total runtime: 0.25 msec > ( Compared to 9.17 msec !!!! 37 times faster! ) Good, but you're not there yet --- the Sort step shouldn't be there at all. You've still got some inconsistency between the ORDER BY and the index. Check my example again. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: