-Original Message-
From: scott.marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:30 AM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: johnn; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed.
What am I doing wrong?
No analyze for 7.1.3.
Just ran
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:10:06PM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
SetOp Except (cost=202028537.97..202120623.90 rows=1227812 width=24)
- Sort (cost=202028537.97..202028537.97 rows=12278124 width=24)
- Append (cost=1.00..200225099.24 rows=12278124
-Original Message-
From: johnn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed.
What am I doing wrong?
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:10:06PM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
NOTICE
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No analyze for 7.1.3.
Just ran vacuum a few minutes before the query. No boost at all.
VACUUM or VACUUM ANALYZE? Standalone ANALYZE was not in 7.1 but
VACUUM ANALYZE does what you need to do...
-Doug
---(end of
johnn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:10:06PM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
- Seq Scan on CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB a
(cost=1.00..100112549.62 rows=6139062 width=24)
Those big round numbers suggest that you haven't run vacuum analyze on
all of your tables.
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Luc Lachance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:43 PM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Dann Corbit; Nigel J. Andrews;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed.
What am I doing wrong
I have a query using two postgres tables.
One is called CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB and the other is called
CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB.
I am getting 3 times slower performance than Microsoft Access when
performing a left outer join.
Here are the tables in question:
connxdatasync=# \d
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Creating the following index had no effect on performance!
create unique index i1 on CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB (RT_REC_KEY,
cnxarraycolumn, CRC);
What does EXPLAIN ANALYZE have to say about the query? If you set
enable_seqscan = 0, does the explain
Added -general list so that the next followup can remove -hackers and everyone
there will have had notice.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
I have a query using two postgres tables.
One is called CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB and the other is called
CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB.
-Original Message-
From: Nigel J. Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:58 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed. What am I
doing wrong?
Added -general list so that the next
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
select a.RT_REC_KEY, a.cnxarraycolumn, a.CRC from
CNX_DS_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB a left outer join
CNX_DS2_53_SIS_STU_OPT_FEE_TB b on ( a.RT_REC_KEY = b.RT_REC_KEY
and a.cnxarraycolumn = b.cnxarraycolumn) where b.oid is null ;
I suspect you get no
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:26 PM
To: Nigel J. Andrews
Cc: Dann Corbit; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed. What am I
doing wrong?
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yikes! Five times slower! But then I took Tom's incredibly helpful
suggestion to disable the sequential scan:
Ideally, you shouldn't have to do that. Now that you have the correct
indexes in place, could you show us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for both
13 matches
Mail list logo
