| From: | "Joe Conway" <jconway2(at)home(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-SQL" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization recommendations request |
| Date: | 2000-12-29 23:39:35 |
| Message-ID: | 00f701c071f0$9a9464c0$0705a8c0@jecw2k1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Subject: Re: [SQL] Optimization recommendations request
>
> What does explain show for your query?
>
I sent this a week ago using the wrong (i.e. not the one I signed up with)
reply-to address, so it didn't make it to the list until just now. In the
meantime I ran explain and noticed that the index wasn't being used. So I
ran vacuum analyze and now I'm getting the expected performance (and explain
shows the index being used). If I understand the logged statistics
correctly, I'm getting results returned in anywhere from about 3 to 45 ms,
depending on cache hit rate. I also repeated my test with 15 million records
with similar results. Not bad at all!
I am still interested in any generic optimization tips for very large
tables.
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-29 23:49:31 | Re: Optimization recommendations request |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2000-12-29 23:12:48 | Re: Optimization recommendations request |