| From: | Benjamin Arai <me(at)benjaminarai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Slow TSearch2 performance for table with 1 million documents. |
| Date: | 2007-10-11 16:12:20 |
| Message-ID: | 0041AF31-D807-4775-B7CF-745B0A1706E2@benjaminarai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Oh, I see. I didn't look carefully at the EXPLAIN ANALYZE I posted.
So, is there a solution to the rank problem?
Benjamin
On Oct 11, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Arai <me(at)benjaminarai(dot)com> writes:
>> It appears that the ORDER BY rank operation is the slowing factor.
>> If I remove it then the query is pretty fast. Is there another way
>> to perform ORDER BY such that it does not do a sort?
>
> I think you misunderstood: it's not the sort that's slow, it's the
> computation of the rank() values that are inputs to the sort.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Jones | 2007-10-11 16:47:37 | Re: XMIN semantic at peril ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-11 16:03:47 | Re: XMIN semantic at peril ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Jones | 2007-10-11 16:51:08 | Re: Huge amount of memory consumed during transaction |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-11 15:53:05 | Re: [PERFORM] Slow TSearch2 performance for table with 1 million documents. |