Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
От | Relaxin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bj7kau$29vl$1@news.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS ("Nick Fankhauser" <nickf@ontko.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
The table has been Vacuumed and seq_scan is turned on. "Jean-Luc Lachance" <jllachan@nsd.ca> wrote in message news:3F5753B9.F4A5A63F@nsd.ca... > You forgot that the original poster's query was: > SELECT * from <table> > > This should require a simple table scan. NO need for stats. > Either the table has not been properly vacuumed or he's got seq_scan > off... > > JLL > > > Nick Fankhauser wrote: > > > > > Yes I Analyze also, but there was no need to because it was a fresh brand > > > new database. > > > > This apparently wasn't the source of problem since he did an analyze anyway, > > but my impression was that a fresh brand new database is exactly the > > situation where an analyze is needed- ie: a batch of data has just been > > loaded and stats haven't been collected yet. > > > > Am I mistaken? > > > > -Nick > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: