From: | "Ken Egervari" <ken(at)upfactor(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ragnar Hafstað <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
Date: | 2005-03-02 20:06:58 |
Message-ID: | 000601c51f63$63c8bb10$6a01a8c0@KEN |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-performance |
>it might help the planner estimate better the number of cs rows
>affected. whether this improves performance depends on whether
>the best plans are sensitive to this.
I managed to try this and see if it did anything. Unfortunately, it made no
difference. It's still 250 milliseconds. It was a good suggestion though.
I believed it work too.
> an EXPLAIN ANALYSE might reduce the guessing.
Okay, here is the explain analyze I managed to get from work. It came out
to 312ms here, but without the analyze it actually runs at ~250ms. It is
using indexes, so my guess is that there are too many joins or it's not
driving on person fast enough. Release code is such a small table that I
dont think that sequencial scan matters. Thanks for taking the time to
analyze this.
Sort (cost=1902.27..1902.31 rows=17 width=91) (actual time=312.000..312.000
rows=39 loops=1)
Sort Key: ss.date
-> Hash Join (cost=617.07..1901.92 rows=17 width=91) (actual
time=234.000..312.000 rows=39 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".carrier_code_id = "inner".id)
-> Merge Join (cost=602.54..1882.73 rows=870 width=91) (actual
time=234.000..312.000 rows=310 loops=1)
Merge Cond: ("outer".current_status_id = "inner".id)
-> Index Scan using shipment_current_status_id_idx on
shipment s (cost=0.00..2552.13 rows=60327 width=66) (actual
time=0.000..61.000 rows=27711 loops=1)
Filter: (is_purged = false)
-> Sort (cost=602.54..607.21 rows=1866 width=25) (actual
time=125.000..125.000 rows=6934 loops=1)
Sort Key: ss.id
-> Hash Join (cost=1.11..501.17 rows=1866 width=25)
(actual time=0.000..78.000 rows=6934 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".release_code_id = "inner".id)
-> Index Scan using current_status_date_idx on
shipment_status ss (cost=0.00..406.78 rows=14924 width=25) (actual
time=0.000..47.000 rows=15053 loops=1)
Index Cond: (date >= (('now'::text)::date -
31))
Filter: (id IS NOT NULL)
-> Hash (cost=1.10..1.10 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=0.000..0.000 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on release_code rc
(cost=0.00..1.10 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: ((number)::text = '9'::text)
-> Hash (cost=14.53..14.53 rows=2 width=4) (actual
time=0.000..0.000 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=4.92..14.53 rows=2 width=4) (actual
time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using person_pkey on person p
(cost=0.00..5.75 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (id = 355)
-> Hash Join (cost=4.92..8.75 rows=2 width=8) (actual
time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".carrier_id)
-> Seq Scan on carrier c (cost=0.00..3.54
rows=54 width=4) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=54 loops=1)
-> Hash (cost=4.92..4.92 rows=2 width=16)
(actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Hash Join (cost=3.04..4.92 rows=2
width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".carrier_id =
"inner".carrier_id)
-> Seq Scan on carrier_code cc
(cost=0.00..1.57 rows=57 width=8) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=57 loops=1)
-> Hash (cost=3.04..3.04 rows=1
width=8) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using
carrier_to_person_person_id_idx on carrier_to_person ctp (cost=0.00..3.04
rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (355 =
person_id)
Total runtime: 312.000 ms
Ken
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-02 20:29:30 | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
Previous Message | Ken Egervari | 2005-03-02 18:56:57 | Re: Help with tuning this query |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-02 20:29:30 | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
Previous Message | Ken Egervari | 2005-03-02 18:56:57 | Re: Help with tuning this query |