| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sort time |
| Date: | 2002-11-15 18:48:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1037386103.14810.82.camel@jester |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 12:33, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Pginfo,
>
> > Yes I have indexes on all this fields.
> > Also I vacuumed and that is the result after it.
> > Actualy I do not see what bad in query execution. The problem is in
> > sort
> > time!
>
> Hmmm... I don't understand. The way I read the EXPLAIN, the sort is
> only taking a few seconds. Am I missing something, here?
The estimated cost had the sort at a few seconds, but the actual times
show it is taking 50% of the total query time.
The big problem is he's sorting by a varchar() which isn't overly quick
no matter what locale. Integers are nice and quick (s.OP is an int,
which shows this).
If IDS_NUM is a number, he could try casting it to an int8, but without
data examples I couldn't say.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-11-15 18:55:11 | Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-11-15 17:33:47 | Re: Sort time |