From: | RHS Linux User <postgres(at)weblynk(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2 |
Date: | 1999-03-24 19:55:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.91.990324115418.542B@weblynk.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The vacuum analyze did it. It's fast now. Thanks a bunch.
rich.
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Postgres mailing lists" <postgres(at)weblynk(dot)com> writes:
> > Anyway, I'm using 6.4.2 and execute the following query in psql, piping the
> > results to a file:
> > "select autos.*, owners.name, owners.email, owners.dphone, owners.ephone,
> > owners.zip, owners.country from autos, owners where autos.ownerid =
> > owners.id;"
> > This takes about 60 seconds at 0% idle CPU, with the backend taking all the
> > time. The file ends up about 3MB. Both tables have between 1200 and 1600
> > rows with about 25 and 7 columns respectively.
>
> Have you done a "vacuum analyze" lately? Sounds like the thing is using
> a nested loop query plan, which is appropriate for tiny tables but not
> for large ones. You could check this by seeing what EXPLAIN says.
>
> Unfortunately, if you haven't done a vacuum, the system effectively
> assumes that all your tables are tiny. I think this is a brain-dead
> default, but haven't had much luck convincing anyone else that the
> default should be changed.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-03-24 23:52:56 | Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit hashjoins |
Previous Message | Erik Riedel | 1999-03-24 19:45:52 | Re: [HACKERS] longer-term optimizer musings |