Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
>here's an example standard query. Ireally have to make the first hit go
>faster. The table is clustered as well on full_name as well. 'Smith%'
>took 87 seconds on the first hit. I wonder if I set up may array wrong.
>I remeber see something about DMA access versus something else, and
>choose DMA access. LVM maybe?
It would be nice if you would format your queries to be a little bit
easier to read before posting them.
However, I believe I am reading it correctly, to say that the index scan
on identity is not your slow point. In fact, as near as I can tell, it
only takes 52ms to complete.
The expensive parts are the 4915 lookups into the litigant_details (each
one takes approx 4ms for a total of ~20s).
And then you do it again on case_data (average 3ms each * 4906 loops =
So there is no need for preloading your indexes on the identity table.
It is definitely not the bottleneck.
So a few design bits, which may help your database.
Why is "actor_id" a text field instead of a number?
You could try creating an index on "litigant_details (actor_id,
count_ori)" so that it can do just an index lookup, rather than an index
More importantly, though, the planner seems to think the join of
identity to litigant_details will only return 1 row, not 5000.
Do you regularly vacuum analyze your tables?
Just as a test, try running:
set enable_nested_loop to off;
And then run EXPLAIN ANALYZE again, just to see if it is faster.
You probably need to increase some statistics targets, so that the
planner can design better plans.
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20411.83 rows=2 width=173)
> (actual time=12.891..38317.017 rows=4906 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20406.48 rows=1 width=159)
> (actual time=12.826..23232.106 rows=4906 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20403.18 rows=1
> width=138) (actual time=12.751..22885.439 rows=4906 loops=1)
> Join Filter: (("outer".case_id)::text =
> -> Index Scan using name_speed on
> identity (cost=0.00..1042.34 rows=4868 width=82) (actual
> time=0.142..52.538 rows=4915 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (((full_name)::text >=
> 'MILLER'::character varying) AND ((full_name)::text <
> 'MILLES'::character varying))
> Filter: (((court_ori)::text =
> 'IL081025J'::text) AND ((full_name)::text ~~ 'MILLER%'::text))
> -> Index Scan using lit_actor_speed on
> litigant_details (cost=0.00..3.96 rows=1 width=81) (actual
> time=4.631..4.635 rows=1 loops=4915)
> Index Cond: (("outer".actor_id)::text
> = (litigant_details.actor_id)::text)
> Filter: ('IL081025J'::text =
> -> Seq Scan on court (cost=0.00..3.29 rows=1
> width=33) (actual time=0.053..0.062 rows=1 loops=4906)
> Filter: ('IL081025J'::text = (id)::text)
> -> Index Scan using case_speed on case_data
> (cost=0.00..5.29 rows=3 width=53) (actual time=3.049..3.058 rows=1
> Index Cond: (('IL081025J'::text =
> (case_data.court_ori)::text) AND ((case_data.case_id)::text =
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2005-08-18 19:22:46|
|Subject: Re: limit number of concurrent callers to a stored proc?|
|Previous:||From: Jeremiah Jahn||Date: 2005-08-18 17:39:21|
|Subject: Re: extremly low memory usage|