Re: [pgsql-performance] Is dump-reload the only cure?

From: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-performance] Is dump-reload the only cure?
Date: 2002-11-01 14:11:03
Message-ID: 1036159864.5794.5.camel@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 08:03, mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com wrote:
>
> Hi Rod ,
>
> Does it means that index scan is used for less frequenlty occuring data?
> yes my table was not clustered.
>
> can u tell me what does 0.00..6788.24 and rows and width means?
>
> in explain out put cost=0.00..6788.24 rows=30001 width=4
>
>
> I have one more table where i face the similar problem , i have not dump - reloaded
> it yet , will post again if i face the problem.

Keep in mind that an index scan is very expensive in regards to a single
tuple. It has to run through (fetch) the index pages, then fetch the
pages from the table. Since the table fetches are random, the harddrive
will probably incur a seek for each tuple found in the index. The seeks
add up much quicker than a sequential scan (without nearly as many seeks
or drive head movements).

--
Rod Taylor

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Spiegelberg 2002-11-01 14:33:47 Linux system panic
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-11-01 14:07:41 Re: [pgsql-performance] Is dump-reload the only cure?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2002-11-01 14:38:51 Re: Is dump-reload the only cure?
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-11-01 14:07:41 Re: [pgsql-performance] Is dump-reload the only cure?