Re: Performance weirdness with/without vacuum analyze

From: Harry Broomhall <harry(dot)broomhall(at)uk(dot)easynet(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance weirdness with/without vacuum analyze
Date: 2003-10-13 14:21:46
Message-ID: 200310131421.PAA42261@haeb.noc.uk.easynet.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Shridhar Daithankar writes:
> On Monday 13 October 2003 19:17, Harry Broomhall wrote:
[SNIP]
> > The input to this query is a fairly large (the example I'm working
> > with has 335,000 rows) set of records containing numbers to be looked
> > up in the lookup table. This lookup table has 239 rows.
>
> Can yu lookup those 239 values in 335,000 rows instead. The result will be
> same but probably it will be lot moer faster...

I'm not entirely sure how I would do this, as the 'lookup' is actualy
a join. I thought that the order of nameing the joined tables didn't
matter (except for 'left' and 'right'), similar to the fact that 1 + 2 is
the same as 2 + 1.

[SNIP]
>
> An explain analyze in both cases+postgresql.conf tuning and hardware/software
> information would be very good. Compress it before you post if you think its
> too big..

This would amount to an attachment, and I'm not sure how this list views
such things.

I've emailed you the file separately.

Regards,
Harry.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ingrim 2003-10-13 14:38:25 unsuscribe mailing list
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-10-13 14:14:55 Re: go for a script! / ex: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL