| From: | "Burak Seydioglu" <buraks78(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael Glaesemann" <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Query performance on session table | 
| Date: | 2007-06-29 03:28:05 | 
| Message-ID: | 1b8a973c0706282028p589c7177mf5e75478bbb825b5@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice | 
> [Please don't top post as it makes the discussion more difficult to
> follow.]
.... and I thought I was an experienced web user... My apologies.
>  The times you're probably
> interested in are of the sort
>
> SELECT *
> FROM session
> WHERE session_id = ?;
>
This query is really fast as you can see in my original post.
> Also, you should be looking at your app to see what
> queries are actually being run against session and how they perform
> rather than using SELECT * FROM session as a benchmark (unless SELECT
> * FROM session *is* a critical query for your app)
The garbage collector (DELETE FROM session WHERE session_expires <
timestamp) has to do the same sequential scan.
# EXPLAIN ANALYZE DELETE FROM session WHERE session_expires<0;
                                                  QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on session  (cost=0.00..147919.91 rows=1 width=6) (actual
time=1473.284..1473.284 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: (session_expires < 0)
 Total runtime: 1473.315 ms
(3 rows)
On a side note however, without me doing anything the results has
changed even though pg_stat_activity table shows the same amount of
activity.
# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM session;
                                                     QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on session  (cost=0.00..147917.93 rows=793 width=282)
(actual time=1519.959..1612.596 rows=672 loops=1)
 Total runtime: 1613.248 ms
(2 rows)
672 rows in 1.6 secs... I guess I am looking at the wrong place.
Thank you for you input.
Burak
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-06-29 03:49:08 | Re: Query performance on session table | 
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-06-29 00:56:19 | Re: Query performance on session table |