| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Carlos Lopez <chlopezl(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] poor performance in migrated database |
| Date: | 2004-11-08 23:57:58 |
| Message-ID: | 12047.1099958278@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
Carlos Lopez <chlopezl(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> This is one of the queries that work,and is the first
> in a 4 level nested query....
Do you really need UNION (as opposed to UNION ALL) in this query?
The EXPLAIN shows that almost half the runtime is going into the
sort/uniq to eliminate duplicates ... and according to the row
counts, there are no duplicates, so it's wasted effort.
I looked at your schema and saw an awful lot of SELECT DISTINCTs
that looked like they might not be necessary, too. But I'm not
willing to crawl through 144 views with no information about
which ones are causing you problems. What's a typical query
that you are unsatisfied with the performance of?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-09 00:01:33 | Re: using psql copy command |
| Previous Message | David Bear | 2004-11-08 23:47:43 | using psql \copy command |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Meinel | 2004-11-09 00:01:30 | Re: vacuum analyze slows sql query |
| Previous Message | patrick ~ | 2004-11-08 23:19:51 | Re: vacuum analyze slows sql query |