| From: | "Chad Thompson" <chad(at)weblinkservices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-sql" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index scan never executed? |
| Date: | 2003-05-30 19:01:07 |
| Message-ID: | 00cd01c326dd$d4342180$32021aac@chad |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
>
> I guess it's a little unclear what to print for the first number when no
> rows are output at all. The code evidently is using the total time spent
> in the plan node, but I think it would be at least as justifiable to
> print a zero instead. Would you have found that less confusing? Anyone
> else have an opinion about whether to change that detail?
>
No, that makes perfect sense now that it has been explained.
> Perhaps an index on project_id would be more helpful, or a two-column
> index on (project_id, start_time).
As usual, you are in fine form. A two-column index brought the query from
115 sec to 6.
Thanks!
Chad
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raj Mathur | 2003-05-30 19:31:21 | Dynamic views/permissions |
| Previous Message | Katka a Daniel Dunajsky | 2003-05-30 18:04:05 | Calculating with the time |