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

Re: select query performance question

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Thomas Zaksek" <zaksek(at)ptt(dot)uni-due(dot)de>
Subject: Re: select query performance question
Date: 2009-07-27 14:43:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Thomas Zaksek <zaksek(at)ptt(dot)uni-due(dot)de> wrote: 
> Is this query plan near to optimal or are their any serious flaws?
I didn't see any problem with the query, but with the information
provided, we can't really tell if you need to reconfigure something,
or maybe add an index.
The plan generated for the query is doing an index scan and on one
table and randomly accessing related rows in another, with an average
time per result row of about 4ms.  Either you've got *really* fast
drives or you're getting some benefit from cache.  Some obvious
What version of PostgreSQL is this?
What OS is the server on?
What does the server hardware look like?  (RAM, drive array, etc.)
What are the non-default lines in the postgresql.conf file?
What are the definitions of these two tables?  How many rows?

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Chris ErnstDate: 2009-07-27 14:59:08
Subject: Re: More speed counting rows
Previous:From: Matthew WakelingDate: 2009-07-27 14:43:26
Subject: Re: select query performance question

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