From: | frbn(at)efbs-seafrigo(dot)fr |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SELECT * FROM t where p or q; |
Date: | 2001-11-20 17:42:05 |
Message-ID: | 3BFA95ED.EE814258@efbs-seafrigo.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
thanks a lot to pay attention to my problem
thanks to you, after a 15mn long "vacuum ANALYZE table" :(
the "OR" works now just how it was supposed to.
I wrongly thought that a "vacuum" did a "vacuum ANALYZE" by default.
I can't figure out how Tera-bytes databases admins can
deal with such vacuum delays!
(except if a vacuum is only needed every 10 millions records :] )
Best regards,
Franck.
Tom Lane wrote :
>
> frbn(at)efbs-seafrigo(dot)fr writes:
> > on a +10 millions rec table, a simple select:
> > SELECT * FROM tab where num = x;
> > time: 5 secondes
>
> > SELECT * FROM tab WHERE num = x OR num = y;
> > time: more than 10 mn !!!
>
> What does EXPLAIN show? Have you VACUUM ANALYZEd the table recently
> (or indeed ever)? This looks a lot like the behavior on a
> never-vacuumed table --- the default statistical assumptions are such
> that an indexscan looks like a win for one equality clause, but not
> for two ORed clauses.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-11-20 17:58:04 | Re: SELECT * FROM t where p or q; |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-20 15:40:33 | Re: SELECT * FROM t where p or q; |