| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | csegyud(at)vnet(dot)hu |
| Cc: | "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "'Pgsql-General(at)Postgresql(dot)Org (E-mail)'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance problem on RH7.1 |
| Date: | 2004-06-29 05:52:24 |
| Message-ID: | 24415.1088488344@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?iso-8859-2?Q?Egy=FCd_Csaba?= <csegyud(at)vnet(dot)hu> writes:
> Limit (cost=30.28..30.28 rows=1 width=58) (actual time=0.19..0.19 rows=1
> loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=30.28..30.30 rows=7 width=58) (actual time=0.18..0.18
> rows=2 loops=1)
> Sort Key: stockid, productid, changeid, date, "time"
> -> Index Scan using t_stockchanges_fullindex on t_stockchanges
> (cost=0.00..30.18 rows=7 width=58) (actual time=0.04..0.08 rows=6 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ((stockid = 1) AND (productid = 234) AND (changeid
> = 1) AND (date <= '2004.06.29'::bpchar))
> Total runtime: 0.25 msec
> ( Compared to 9.17 msec !!!! 37 times faster! )
Good, but you're not there yet --- the Sort step shouldn't be there at
all. You've still got some inconsistency between the ORDER BY and the
index. Check my example again.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-29 06:04:48 | Re: Seeing uncommitted transactions |
| Previous Message | Mike Castle | 2004-06-29 05:51:37 | Re: Multiple databases on seperate drives/file systems? |