| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | dforum <dforums(at)vieonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GiST index performance |
| Date: | 2009-04-16 17:23:49 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.0904161822060.22330@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, dforum wrote:
> there is other performance problem on this request.
>
> If you analyse query plan, you see that most of the time are lost during
> sequencial scan, and you have 2 seq scan.
Nonsense. Sequential scans account for all of one or two seconds of
processing in these queries, which are 14 seconds and 38 minutes
respectively.
Matthew
--
Doctor: Are you okay? You appear to be injured.
Neelix: Aaaaaaah!
Doctor: It's okay, it looks superficial.
Neelix: Am I going to die?
Doctor: Not unless you are allergic to tomatoes. This appears to be a sauce
some kind.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-16 17:52:35 | Re: GiST index performance |
| Previous Message | dforum | 2009-04-16 17:19:18 | Re: GiST index performance |