Please see attached the output from explain analyse. This is with the
shared_buffers = 10600
work_mem = 102400
enable_seqscan = true
BTW I guess should mention that I am doing the select count(*) on a View.
Ran the Explain analyse with the nestedloop disabled but it was taking
forever... and killed it after 30mins.
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, John A Meinel wrote:
> Shoaib Burq (VPAC) wrote:
> >Just tried it with the following changes:
> >shared_buffers = 10600
> >work_mem = 102400
> >enable_seqscan = false
> >still no improvement
> >Ok here's the Plan with the enable_seqscan = false:
> >ausclimate=# explain ANALYZE select count(*) from "getfutureausclimate";
> Actually, you probably don't want enable_seqscan=off, you should try:
> SET enable_nestloop TO off.
> The problem is that it is estimating there will only be 44 rows, but in
> reality there are 13M rows. It almost definitely should be doing a
> seqscan with a sort and merge join.
> Also, please attach you explain analyzes, the wrapping is really hard to
> I don't understand how postgres could get the number of rows that wrong.
> It seems to be misestimating the number of entries in IX_ClimateId
> -> Index Scan using "PK_Aus40_DEM" on "Aus40_DEM" (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.005..0.006 rows=1 loops=13276368)
> Index Cond: ("outer"."AusPosNumber" = "Aus40_DEM"."AusPosNumber")
> -> Index Scan using "PK_CurrentAusClimate" on "CurrentAusClimate" (cost=0.00..46.20 rows=11 width=14) (actual time=0.007..0.009 rows=1 loops=13276368)
> The first index scan is costing you 0.006*13276368=79s, and the second one is 119s.
> I can't figure out exactly what is where from the formatting, but the query that seems misestimated is:
> -> Index Scan using "IX_ClimateId" on "ClimateChangeModel40" (cost=0.00..1063711.75 rows=265528 width=20) (actual time=28.311..17212.703 rows=13276368 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ("outer"."ClimateId" = "ClimateChangeModel40"."ClimateId")
> Is there an unexpected correlaction between
> ClimateChangeModel40"."ClimateId" and whatever "outer" is at this point?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-04-22 03:55:21|
|Subject: Re: foreign key performance|
|Previous:||From: Enrico Weigelt||Date: 2005-04-22 00:06:15|
|Subject: foreign key performance |