Re: using an index worst performances

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: using an index worst performances
Date: 2004-08-19 18:09:55
Message-ID: 4124ECF3.6040901@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm tring to optimize the following query:
>
> http://rafb.net/paste/results/YdO9vM69.html
>
> as you can see from the explain after defining the
> index the performance is worst.
>
> If I raise the default_statistic_target to 200
> then the performance are worst then before:
>
>
> Without index: 1.140 ms
> With index: 1.400 ms
> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms

Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the
thousands separator)?

If it means 1.8ms then frankly the times are too short to mean anything
without running them 100 times and averaging.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-08-19 19:56:38 Re: using an index worst performances
Previous Message Daniel Ceregatti 2004-08-19 18:03:04 What is the best way to do attribute/values?