Re: speeding up a query
От | Marcus Engene |
---|---|
Тема | Re: speeding up a query |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46131E68.70207@engene.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: speeding up a query (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane skrev: > Marcus Engene <mengpg2@engene.se> writes: > >> Should it take 2.5s to sort these 442 rows? >> > > >> Limit (cost=54.40..54.43 rows=12 width=8) (actual >> time=2650.254..2651.093 rows=442 loops=1) >> -> Sort (cost=54.40..54.43 rows=12 width=8) (actual >> time=2650.251..2650.515 rows=442 loops=1) >> Sort Key: calc_rating >> -> Index Scan using apa_item_fts on apa_item ai >> (cost=0.00..54.18 rows=12 width=8) (actual time=61.261..2649.045 >> rows=442 loops=1) >> Index Cond: (idxfti @@ '''kca0304'''::tsquery) >> Filter: (status = 30) >> Total runtime: 2651.659 ms >> > > It's not the sort that's taking 2.5s --- the sort looks to be taking > about a millisec and a half. The indexscan is eating the other 2649 > msec. The question that seems to be interesting is what's the > difference between the contexts of your two queries, because they > sure look like the indexscans were the same. Maybe the second one > is merely benefiting from the first one having already sucked all the > data into cache? > > regards, tom lane > Yes indeed you are completely right! Both queries take about the same when run after the other. And I just made a fool of myself with an optimizing idea I had... Sorry for the noise and thanks for your answer! Best regards, Marcus
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: