Re: GiST index performance
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: GiST index performance
Дата
Msg-id
26037.1239904355@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: GiST index performance (dforum)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Re: GiST index performance "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: GiST index performance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Re: GiST index performance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Re: GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Re: GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Re: GiST index performance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Re: GiST index performance dforum <dforums@vieonet.com>
Re: GiST index performance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: GiST index performance Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Re: GiST index performance Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
dforum writes: > If you analyse query plan, you see that most of the time are lost during > sequencial scan, and you have 2 seq scan. I think you missed the loops count. >> -> Index Scan using location_object_start_gist on location l1 >> (cost=0.00..4.16 rows=150 width=65) >> (actual time=3.354..10.757 rows=3 loops=211880) >> Index Cond: ((l1.objectid = l2.objectid) AND >> (l2.intermine_start <= l1.intermine_start) AND (l2.intermine_end >= >> l1.intermine_start)) This indexscan is accounting for 10.757 * 211880 msec, which is 99% of the runtime. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления