Re: is it possible to make this faster?
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is it possible to make this faster? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 346F1F9F-10E6-43F7-80E4-0DE989E5D760@pervasive.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is it possible to make this faster? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: is it possible to make this faster?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On May 25, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: >>> recent versions of mysql do much better, returning same set in < >>> 20ms. > >> Well, since they don't do MVCC they can answer this query from the >> index without going to the heap at all. But that still seems >> remarkably >> fast for something that has to grovel through 300k index entries. > > Are you sure you measured that right? I tried to duplicate this using > mysql 5.0.21, and I see runtimes of 0.45 sec without an index and > 0.15 sec with. This compares to psql times around 0.175 sec. Doesn't > look to me like we're hurting all that badly, even without using the > index. Well, that would depend greatly on how wide the rows were, and I don't believe the OP ever mentioned that. If he's got a nice, fat varchar(1024) in that table, then it's not surprising that an index would help things. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: