From: | Guillaume Le'mery <glemery(at)comclick(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Load a database into memory |
Date: | 2001-01-26 09:18:54 |
Message-ID: | 3A7140FE.7080306@comclick.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>> Maybe I should create an index on (num_editeur, num_site, num_emplacement)
>> ?
>
>
> Yes. Try to. This is the best choice.
Here it comes :
VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE accord_editeur;
NOTICE: --Relation accord_editeur--
NOTICE: Pages 7096: Changed 0, reaped 6790, Empty 0, New 0; Tup 447032:
Vac 0, Keep/VTL 0/0, Crash 0, UnUsed 23768, MinLen 124, MaxLen 124;
Re-using: Free/Avail. Space 721776/0; EndEmpty/Avail. Pages 0/0. CPU
0.39s/1.67u sec.
NOTICE: Index ae_tracking_idx: Pages 2300; Tuples 447032: Deleted 0.
CPU 0.07s/0.90u sec.
VACUUM
EXPLAIN :
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..228.27 rows=1 width=56)
-> Index Scan using parametre_tracking_idx on parametre par
(cost=0.00..2.02 rows=1 width=8)
-> Index Scan using ae_tracking_idx on accord_editeur ae
(cost=0.00..225.50 rows=60 width=48)
EXPLAIN
So, no change for the cost...
Only for the number of pages...
So, if I can't more optimize my index, what else should I try ?
It uses too much CPU for me...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Denis Perchine | 2001-01-26 09:26:11 | Re: Load a database into memory |
Previous Message | Denis Perchine | 2001-01-26 09:08:39 | Re: Load a database into memory |