| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow first query despite LIMIT and OFFSET clause |
| Date: | 2009-01-26 07:07:35 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10901252307p1c215f32s23fb6fe52beeaacd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hi Scott. Yes, there is an autovacuum on both the tables. Should i
>>> additionally do a manual vacuum too?
>>
>> Nah, just an analyze. what version of pgsql is this, btw?
>>
>
>
> Actually both vacuum and analyze happen at regular intervals. Are they
> not doing their job?
Hard to say. You could try increasing your stats target on the fields
where the approximation is way off.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2009-01-26 11:41:21 | where (x, y, z) in ((x1, y1, z1), (x1, y1, z1), (x1, y1, z1), (x2, y2, z2)) (not) optimized |
| Previous Message | Phoenix Kiula | 2009-01-26 07:06:00 | Re: Slow first query despite LIMIT and OFFSET clause |