Re: Any better plan for this query?..

On May 6, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
>> I'll try to answer all mails at once :-))
>> - query is running fully in RAM, no I/O, no network, only CPU time
>> - looping 100 times the same query gives 132ms total time (~1.32ms
>> per
>> query), while it's 44ms on InnoDB (~0.44ms per query)
>
> Well, assuming you're happy that PG is tuned reasonably for your
> machine and that MySQL's query cache isn't returning the results
> here it looks like MySQL is faster for this particular query.
>
> The only obvious place there could be a big gain is with the hashing
> algorithm. If you remove the ORDER BY and the query-time doesn't
> fall by much then it's the hash phase.
>
> The other thing to try is to alter the query to be a SELECT count(*)
> rather than returning rows - that will let you measure the time to
> transfer the result rows.
>
> --
>  Richard Huxton
>  Archonet Ltd
>


Do you expect to run this query 100 times per second during your
application?
or is this just a test to see how fast the query is for optimalisation.

I always get scared myself with such a test as 'runs out of memory',
reason
given is that usually this is not really the case in a production
environment.

Try to make a little test case where you give the query random
parameters
so different result sets are returned. This will give you a better
idea on how
fast the query really is and might give you better comparison results.

instead of count(*) I isusallt do explain analyze to see how fast
PostgreSQL handles to query.

Ries