Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

R: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize

From: "Edoardo Ceccarelli" <eddy(at)axa(dot)it>
To: "'Sam Barnett-Cormack'" <s(dot)barnett-cormack(at)lancaster(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: R: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize
Date: 2004-02-05 01:06:53
Message-ID: 2s28b9$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------
> > --------------------
> >  Seq Scan on utente  (cost=0.00..92174.50 rows=3 width=724) (actual
> > time=705.41..6458.19 rows=15 loops=1)
> >    Filter: (luogorilasciodoc = 'ciao'::bpchar)  Total 
> runtime: 6458.29 
> > msec
> > (3 rows
> >
> > Things are worst only for seqscan, when it uses indexscan 
> timing is good.
> Only thing I can think of is if storage method had been 
> changed. Not sure if that would even affect it, or if it 
> could do that by itself.
> Just brainstorming.

Do you know how can I check if the storage method has changed? 
I was thinking that the priority target of a vacuum operation is to reclaim disk space
- this might imply that the performance are worst for a seqscan - maybe it's normal.
Anyway, I am doing a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE right now to see if things get better.

Thanks for you hints

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Edoardo CeccarelliDate: 2004-02-05 02:10:13
Subject: R: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize
Previous:From: Sam Barnett-CormackDate: 2004-02-05 00:56:42
Subject: Re: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group