From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Terrible performance on wide selects |
Date: | 2003-01-17 23:06:52 |
Message-ID: | 19506.1042844812@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> writes:
> So the question is, does it seem reasonable that a query on fundamentally
> identical data should take 70-90 times as long when displayed as individual
> columns vs. when output as a raw array and, more imporantly, what can I do to
> get acceptable performance on this query?
There are undoubtedly some places that are O(N^2) in the number of
targetlist items. Feel free to do some profiling to identify them.
It probably won't be real hard to fix 'em once identified.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-17 23:11:21 | Re: pg_stat_get_backen_last_activity() ??? |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-01-17 22:57:32 | temporary tables |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-17 23:17:12 | Re: Suggestion for aggregate function |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-01-17 23:06:06 | Re: IPv6 patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-18 04:49:31 | Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-01-17 19:37:26 | Terrible performance on wide selects |