| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Clark <sclark(at)netwolves(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: best way to query |
| Date: | 2008-01-25 15:48:01 |
| Message-ID: | 749.1201276081@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Steve Clark <sclark(at)netwolves(dot)com> writes:
> explain shows:
> Aggregate (cost=4712921585.30..4712921585.31 rows=1 width=0)
> -> Seq Scan on t_event_ack_log a (cost=103170.29..4712920878.60
> rows=282677 width=0)
> Filter: (NOT (subplan))
> SubPlan
> -> Materialize (cost=103170.29..117301.92 rows=1016163
> width=4)
> -> Index Scan using pk_tuel_eln on t_unit_event_log
> (cost=0.00..98184.12 rows=1016163 width=4)
Yeah, that's going to suck. A brute force solution is to see if you
can get it to switch to a "hashed subplan" by increasing work_mem.
Also, whatever is the ORDER BY for?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wes | 2008-01-25 16:14:04 | Re: REINDEX on large DB vs. DROP INDEX/CREATE INDEX |
| Previous Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2008-01-25 15:36:41 | Re: exporting postgre data |