"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule 'at' gmail.com> writes:
> Hello
>
> 2008/9/1 David West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Thanks for your suggestion but the result is the same.
>>
>> Here is the explain analyse output from different queries.
>> Select * from my_table where A is null and B = '21' limit 15
>>
>> "Limit (cost=0.00..3.68 rows=15 width=128) (actual
>> time=85837.043..85896.140 rows=15 loops=1)"
>> " -> Seq Scan on my_table this_ (cost=0.00..258789.88 rows=1055580
>> width=128) (actual time=85837.038..85896.091 rows=15 loops=1)"
>> " Filter: ((A IS NULL) AND ((B)::text = '21'::text))"
>> "Total runtime: 85896.214 ms"
>>
>
> I see it - problem is in statistics - system expect 1055580, but there
> is only 15 values.
Aren't you rather seeing the effect of the limit clause?
gc=# create table foo ( bar int );
CREATE TABLE
gc=# insert into foo ( select generate_series(0, 10000000) / 1000000 );
INSERT 0 10000001
gc=# analyze foo;
ANALYZE
gc=# explain analyze select * from foo where bar = 8 limit 15;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..2.30 rows=15 width=4) (actual time=2379.878..2379.921
rows=15 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..164217.00 rows=1070009 width=4) (actual
time=2379.873..2379.888 rows=15 loops=1)
Filter: (bar = 8)
Total runtime: 2379.974 ms
(on 8.3.1)
--
Guillaume Cottenceau, MNC Mobile News Channel SA, an Alcatel-Lucent Company
Av. de la Gare 10, 1003 Lausanne, Switzerland - direct +41 21 317 50 36
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
