Re: using an index worst performances
От | Gaetano Mendola |
---|---|
Тема | Re: using an index worst performances |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4125C657.7000702@bigfoot.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: using an index worst performances (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: using an index worst performances
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: |>>> Without index: 1.140 ms |>>> With index: 1.400 ms |>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the |>> thousands separator)? |>> |>> If it means 1.8ms then frankly the times are too short to mean |>> anything without running them 100 times and averaging. |> |> |> |> |> It mean 1.8 ms and that execution time is sticky to that value even |> with 1000 times. | | | Given the almost irrelvant difference in the speed of those queries, I'd | say that with the stats so high, postgres simply takes longer to check | the statistics to come to the same conclusion. ie. it has to loop over | 200 rows instead of just 10. The time increase seems too much. Regards Gaetano Mendola -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBJcZW7UpzwH2SGd4RAuiMAJ971EAtr1RrHu2QMi0YYk0kKeuQmACg9bd3 CFcmq5MRG/Eq3RXdNOdu43Y= =Bvo8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: