oddly high cost but low actual_time (but not in slony replicants)
От | Jeff Amiel |
---|---|
Тема | oddly high cost but low actual_time (but not in slony replicants) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47EA949A.80602@istreamimaging.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: oddly high cost but low actual_time (but not in slony replicants)
Re: oddly high cost but low actual_time (but not in slony replicants) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Only 19 rows in the table..... explain analyze select * from table_a; "Seq Scan on table_a (cost=100000000.00..100000001.02 rows=19 width=103) (actual time=0.007..0.012 rows=19 loops=1)" "Total runtime: 0.040 ms" If I run the same query on the same table in a different database that I pg_restored from a recent dump...same results "Seq Scan on table_a (cost=100000000.00..100000001.02 rows=20 width=135) (actual time=0.009..0.011 rows=20 loops=1)" "Total runtime: 0.046 ms" But if I run from a slony replicated node... "Seq Scan on table_a (cost=0.00..1.20 rows=20 width=103)" Weird...... No indexes on the table except the primary key (bigserial)... Not that it has any impact but wherever I get the high cost it is running on Solaris with the database on a zfs mounted SAN "PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i386-pc-solaris2.10, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 (csl-sol210-3_4-branch+sol_rpath)" Low cost comes from FreeBSD nodes running database locally "PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i386-portbld-freebsd6.0, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 3.4.4 [FreeBSD] 20050518" It appears that may of my tables exhibit this characteristic... If, however, I use any REAL indexes, cost is much more 'normal'..... any ideas? I'm not really worried...but I was troubleshooting a high-cost query that led me to this table specifically.....
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: