Re: cost and actual time
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: cost and actual time |
Дата | |
Msg-id | web-2838434@davinci.ethosmedia.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | cost and actual time (Chantal Ackermann <chantal.ackermann@biomax.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: cost and actual time
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Chantal, > Sort Key: disease.disease_name, disease_occurrences.sentence_id > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6922.38 rows=98 width=64) (actual > time=61.49..275047.46 rows=18910 loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6333.23 rows=98 width=28) (actual > time=61.42..274313.87 rows=18910 loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5894.04 rows=64 width=16) (actual > time=32.00..120617.26 rows=46849 loops=1) > > I tried to tweak the conf settings, but I think I already reached > quite a good value concerning shared buffers and sort mem. the > database is vacuum full analyzed. indexes seem fine. You *sure* that you've vacuum analyzed recently? The planner above is choosing a bad plan because its row estimates are way off ... if the subquery was actually returning 98 rows, the plan above would make sense ... but with 18,000 rows being returned, a Nested Loop is suicidal. Perhaps you could post the full text of the query? If some of your criteria are coming from volatile functions, then that could explain why the planner is so far off ... -Josh Berkus
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: