Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: performance of IN (subquery)

From: Kevin Murphy <murphy(at)genome(dot)chop(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance of IN (subquery)
Date: 2004-08-27 12:40:42
Message-ID: 200408270840.42087.murphy@genome.chop.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Thanks all for the reminders about analyzing, and I apologize for wasting 
everyone's time.  The main table did indeed need to be analyzed (I had 
truncated it and repopulated it with "insert ... select" but forgotten to 
analyze).  The other tables are very small temporary tables, and I assumed, 
whether correctly or not, that analyzing would not be helpful for them.

All this is happening in the context of an algorithm in a PL/PGSQL function.  
The three temporary tables are reused thousands of times.  I wasn't sure if 
it would be better to truncate them between uses to keep them small or just 
allow them to grow.  Unfortunately for the Tree of Knowledge, performance is 
now more than adequate, so I may not do this experiment. 

Thanks,
Kevin Murphy

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Anton MelserDate: 2004-08-27 12:55:15
Subject: grid things and postgres
Previous:From: Jon LaphamDate: 2004-08-27 12:28:36
Subject: Re: performance of IN (subquery)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group