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

Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans

From: Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans
Date: 2010-10-27 18:52:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Reid Thompson <Reid(dot)Thompson(at)ateb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 13:23 -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> set it to 500 and restarted postgres.
> did you re-analyze?

Not recently. I tried that, initially, and there was no improvement.
I'll try it again now that I've set the stats to 500.
The most recent experiment shows me that, unless I create whatever
indexes I would like to see used *before* the large (first) update,
then they just don't get used. At all. Why would I need to ANALYZE the
table immediately following index creation? Isn't that part of the
index creation process?

Currently executing is a test where I place an "ANALYZE foo" after the
COPY, first UPDATE, and first index, but before the other (much
smaller) updates.


Nope. The ANALYZE made no difference. This is what I just ran:

COPY ...
UPDATE ... -- 1/3 of table, approx
CREATE INDEX foo_rowB_idx on foo (rowB);
-- queries from here to 'killed' use WHERE rowB = 'someval'
UPDATE ... -- 7 rows. seq scan!
UPDATE ... -- 242 rows, seq scan!
UPDATE .. -- 3700 rows, seq scan!
UPDATE .. -- 3100 rows, seq scan!


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Andreas KretschmerDate: 2010-10-27 18:58:04
Subject: Re: Massive update, memory usage
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-10-27 18:51:23
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

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