Re: slow group by query

I have vacuum analyzed recently.  I do it after a large number of inserts
and after indexing.  This database is in the development stages so there is
a lot of data loading at this time.  We are also using 7.2.3.  Here is
the explain analyze:

Group  (cost=637.18..696.52 rows=593 width=22) (actual 
time=982.67..67581.85 row
s=435 loops=1)  ->  Sort  (cost=637.18..637.18 rows=5934 width=22) (actual 
time=833.27..844.78 rows=6571 loops=1)        ->  Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key, 
msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key, msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key, msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key, 
msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key on tbl_bls_msa b  (cost=0.00..265.30 rows=5934 width=22) (actual 
time=0.80..367.64 rows=6571 loops=1)  SubPlan    ->  Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key on tbl_bls_msa 
bls  (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.46..30.36 rows=1 loops=435)    ->  Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa 
 
bls  (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.54..30.41 rows=1 loops=435)    ->  Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa 
 
bls  (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.53..30.69 rows=1 loops=435)    ->  Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa 
 
bls  (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.19..30.66 rows=1 loops=435)    ->  Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa 
 
bls  (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.19..30.80 rows=1 loops=435)
Total runtime: 67589.69 msec

EXPLAIN

Thanks for the help.

At 10:21 AM 11/19/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Ellen Cyran <ellen@urban.csuohio.edu> writes:
> > Is there any way to make this query faster?  I have indexes on year,
> > msa_code, and sic.  I've also tried it with
> > an index on the combined group by columns.  I've made both sort_mem and
> > shared_buffers bigger, but still this query
> > takes 40 seconds when I select 4 msa_codes and 7 minutes when I select 40
> > msa_codes.
>
>Hm, have you vacuum analyzed lately?  Those cost estimates seem awfully
>low for a query that is taking 40 sec.  Also, if you're using 7.2 (which
>you should be ;-)) then showing EXPLAIN ANALYZE results would be more
>useful than plain EXPLAIN.
>
>                         regards, tom lane