: 2.640 ms
dev=# select pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('order'));
pg_size_pretty
516 MB
(1 row)
Thanks,
Suya
On 8/10/16, 11:57 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
Suya Huang writes:
> Thank you Tom very much, that’s the piece of information I miss.
> So, shoul
at 9:46 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Suya Huang wrote:
>> dev=# explain analyze
>> SELECT COALESCE(w.displayname, o.name) FROM order o INNER JOIN data w
>> ON w.name = o.name WHERE (w.name LIKE '%dog%' OR w.displayname LIKE
>>
Thank you Tom very much, that’s the piece of information I miss.
So, should I expect that the nested loop join would be much faster if I cache
both tables (use pg_prewarm) into memory as it waives the disk read?
Thanks,
Suya
On 8/10/16, 10:45 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
Suya Hua
0.022..0.022 rows=3 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((displayname)::text ~~
'%dog%'::text)
-> Index Scan using idx_order_1_us on order o (cost=0.56..8.58
rows=1 width=30) (actual time=0.025..0.026 rows=0 loops=526)
Index Co
seconds, sounds slow to me. Is that normal?
Thanks,
Suya
On 8/10/16, 9:52 AM, "Claudio Freire" wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Suya Huang wrote:
> I’ve got a SQL runs for about 4 seconds first time it’s been executed,but
> very fast (20ms) for the consequent runs. I thou
Hi,
I’ve got a SQL runs for about 4 seconds first time it’s been executed,but very
fast (20ms) for the consequent runs. I thought it’s because that the first time
table being loaded into memory. However, if you change the where clause value
from “cat” to “dog”, it runs about 4 seconds as it’s n
