am Thu, dem 05.04.2007, um 1:27:25 -0400 mailte Tom Lane folgendes: > "A. Kretschmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > am Wed, dem 04.04.2007, um 23:17:54 -0400 mailte Sumeet folgendes: > >> sm=> explain analyze select * from ma limit 10; > >> QUERY > >> PLAN > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Limit (cost=0.00..0.45 rows=10 width=76) (actual time=21985.292..22204.340 > >> rows=10 loops=1) > >> -> Seq Scan on ma (cost=0.00..2181956.92 rows=48235392 width=76) (actual > >> time=21985.285..22204.308 rows=10 loops=1) > >> Total runtime: 22204.476 ms > >> (3 rows) > > > which version? > > I'm betting the problem is poor vacuuming practice leading to lots of > dead space. There's no way it takes 22 sec to read 10 rows if the > table is reasonably dense.
This was my first thought, but: ,----[ Quote ] | I've tried | vacuuming this table many time `---- Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header) GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
