From: | snpe <snpe(at)infosky(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance aggregates |
Date: | 2001-05-15 18:59:19 |
Message-ID: | 01051520591903.01497@spnew |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 17:28, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, snpe wrote:
> > Table e_kalkn have 4668 rows and e_kalkns 101170 rows.
> >
> > Query :
> >
> > select roba,sum(izn)
> > from e_kalkn k,e_kalkns ks
> > where k.id=ks.id
> > group by roba
> > order by roba
> >
> > is 2.5 times faster on one commercial database (there are tests on
> > Internet that say 'Postgresql is faster than that database).
> > I can't say which database it is.
>
> Have you run vacuum analyze (since loading the data) and what does explain
> show for the query. Also, what version are you using?
I have run :
vacuumdb --analyze -v -d mytest
I try index on column roba in table e_kalkn, but all is same.
This is explain :
psql:up1:4: NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Aggregate (cost=11132.18..11286.42 rows=3085 width=32)
-> Group (cost=11132.18..11209.30 rows=30849 width=32)
-> Sort (cost=11132.18..11132.18 rows=30849 width=32)
-> Hash Join (cost=121.35..8831.95 rows=30849 width=32)
-> Seq Scan on e_kalkns ks (cost=0.00..2041.10
rows=101710 width=16)
-> Hash (cost=109.68..109.68 rows=4668 width=16)
-> Seq Scan on e_kalkn k (cost=0.00..109.68
rows=4668 width=16)
EXPLAIN
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | snpe | 2001-05-15 19:00:02 | Re: Performance aggregates |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-15 18:22:18 | Re: Re: Re: What's the best front end/client under MS Windows? |