Re: mnogosearch -- pgsql seem so slow, please help me find out why

From: "Thomas T(dot) Thai" <tom(at)minnesota(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: mnogosearch -- pgsql seem so slow, please help me find out why
Date: 2001-01-12 16:58:27
Message-ID: Pine.NEB.4.21.0101121054570.18450-100000@ns01.minnesota.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Thomas T. Thai" <tom(at)minnesota(dot)com> writes:
> > 'select * from url' from psql monitor took 59 seconds.
>
> How big is the table? Your EXPLAIN mentions 99256 rows, but I can't
> tell if that stat is up-to-date or not.

it is 99256. i don't think it's that big of a table is it? typically the
query under mnogo takes less than a second, at most a couple seconds but
not 50+ secs.

maybe Hermit has some input as he runs it for postgresql.org's search.

> A select like that is going to be pretty much all data transfer: read
> the disk blocks, format the data values, send 'em to the frontend.
> There's hardly anything that Postgres can do to optimize or pessimize
> it. You might shave a few milliseconds by using a binary cursor (to
> avoid formatting the integer values into ASCII) but probably not a lot.
>
> If you've done a whole lot of UPDATEs/DELETEs on the table since your
> last VACUUM, then reading empty disk blocks might be costing you some
> time.

i did vacuum analyze.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-01-12 17:27:36 Re: mnogosearch -- pgsql seem so slow, please help me find out why
Previous Message Peter Gubis 2001-01-12 16:49:39 on statement triggers