Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS

From: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>
To: nickf(at)ontko(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date: 2003-09-04 15:01:13
Message-ID: 3F5753B9.F4A5A63F@nsd.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

You forgot that the original poster's query was:
SELECT * from <table>

This should require a simple table scan. NO need for stats.
Either the table has not been properly vacuumed or he's got seq_scan
off...

JLL

Nick Fankhauser wrote:
>
> > Yes I Analyze also, but there was no need to because it was a fresh brand
> > new database.
>
> This apparently wasn't the source of problem since he did an analyze anyway,
> but my impression was that a fresh brand new database is exactly the
> situation where an analyze is needed- ie: a batch of data has just been
> loaded and stats haven't been collected yet.
>
> Am I mistaken?
>
> -Nick
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Relaxin 2003-09-04 15:05:15 Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Previous Message Relaxin 2003-09-04 14:35:24 Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS