From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index scan startup time |
Date: | 2006-03-30 12:31:34 |
Message-ID: | 20060330123134.GA13408@uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 02:23:53PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> EXPLAIN ANALYZE select activity_id from activity where state in (10000,
>>> 10001) order by activity_id limit 100;
>>>
>>> QUERY PLAN
>>>
>>> Limit (cost=0.00..622.72 rows=100 width=8) (actual
>>> time=207356.054..207356.876 rows=100 loops=1)
>>> -> Index Scan using activity_pk on activity (cost=0.00..40717259.91
>>> rows=6538650 width=8) (actual time=207356.050..207356.722 rows=100
>>> loops=1) Filter: ((state = 10000) OR (state = 10001))
>>> Total runtime: 207357.000 ms
>>>
>>> The table has seen VACUUM FULL and REINDEX before this.
>> The index scan is by activity_id, not by state. Do you have an index on
>> state at all?
> There is an index on state as well but the column is not selective enough.
Well, it's logical enough; it scans along activity_id until it finds one with
state=10000 or state=10001. You obviously have a _lot_ of records with low
activity_id and state none of these two, so Postgres needs to scan all those
records before it founds 100 it can output. This is the “startup cost” you're
seeing.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-03-30 12:35:53 | Re: Index scan startup time |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-03-30 12:24:27 | Re: Index scan startup time |