| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index scan startup time |
| Date: | 2006-03-30 12:23:53 |
| Message-ID: | 200603301423.54510.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2006 14:02 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:59:10PM +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.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-03-30 12:24:27 | Re: Index scan startup time |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2006-03-30 12:06:05 | Re: Index scan startup time |