Re: Performance of query
| От | Cindy Makarowsky |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Performance of query |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAM_v1L0xTEO_2x_ZTfO8xueLWsbhYJi_y5m9E0WsTy5AwBtcGA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Performance of query (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Performance of query
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
But, I do have an index on Table1 on the state field which is in my group by condition:
I have vacuumed the table too.
CREATE INDEX statidx2
ON table1
USING btree
(state COLLATE pg_catalog."default" );
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 03/22/2013 12:46 PM, Cindy Makarowsky wrote:Well, you're summarizing 55 million rows on an unindexed table:
> I've tried playing around with the settings in the config file for
> shared_buffers, work_mem, etc restarting Postgres each time and nothing
> seems to help.... that's where your time is going.
" -> Seq Scan on busbase (cost=0.00..6378172.28 rows=55402728
width=7) (actual time=0.004..250046.673 rows=60057057 loops=1)"
My only suggestion would be to create a composite index which matches
the group by condition on table1, and vacuum freeze the whole table so
that you can use index-only scan on 9.2.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: