Re: A very long running query....

From: Ioannis Anagnostopoulos <ioannis(at)anatec(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A very long running query....
Date: 2012-07-21 19:24:24
Message-ID: 500B01E8.1000405@anatec.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice pgsql-performance

On 21/07/2012 20:19, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
> <ioannis(at)anatec(dot)com> wrote:
>> I am not sure that I can see an improvement, at least on src_id that have
>> lots of msg_id per day the query never returned even 5 hours later running
>> "exaplain analyze". For smaller src_id
>> (message wise) there might be some improvement or it was just the analyse
>> that I run. As I said the stats goes quickly out of scope because of the big
>> number of updates. So it looks like that
>> it is not the "funny" "where" concatenation or some kind of index
>> construction problem. Which brings us back to the issue of the
>> "statistics_target" on per column. My problem is that given the
>> query plan I provided you yesterday, I am not sure which columns
>> statistics_target to touch and what short of number to introduce. Is there
>> any rule of thumb?
> What's the size of your index, tables, and such?
> In GB I mean, not tuples.
The message_copies_wk2 that I currently hit is 13GB and 11 the Indexes, the
ship_a_pos_messages_wk2 is 17GB and 2.5MB the index and the ship_objects
is 150MB table and index approx.

Yiannis

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2012-07-21 20:10:51 Re: A very long running query....
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2012-07-21 19:19:20 Re: A very long running query....

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2012-07-21 20:10:51 Re: A very long running query....
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2012-07-21 19:19:20 Re: A very long running query....