| From: | Mark Stosberg <mark(at)summersault(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: explain analyze output: vacuuming made a big difference. |
| Date: | 2007-02-06 14:54:59 |
| Message-ID: | eqa4sv$1o6h$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
> I'm reading the explain analyze output correctly myself, nearly all of
> the time spent is related to the 'pets' table, but I can't see what to
> about it.
Something about typing that message jarred by brain to think to try:
VACUUM FULL pets;
VACUUM ANALYZE pets;
Now the new cube-based calculation benchmarks reliably faster. The old
lat/lon systems now benchmarks at 250ms, while the the new cube-based
code bechmarks at 100ms, over a 50% savings!
That's good enough for me.
However, I'm still interested advice on the other points I snuck into my
last message about joining with ints vs varchars and best use of partial
indexes.
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiltibidal, Robert | 2007-02-06 15:04:54 | Re: explain analyze output for review (was: optimizing a geo_distance()...) |
| Previous Message | Adam Rich | 2007-02-06 14:53:57 | Re: explain analyze output for review (was: optimizing a geo_distance()...) |