From: | "Dave Dutcher" <dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query plan for "heavy" SELECT with "lite" sub-SELECTs |
Date: | 2006-11-02 14:25:27 |
Message-ID: | 012a01c6fe8a$bee330e0$8300a8c0@tridecap.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Nikolay Samokhvalov
>
> What should I do to make Postgres work properly in such cases (I have
> a lot of similar queries; surely, they are executed w/o seqscans, but
> overall picture is the same - I see that starting from sub-selects
> dramatically decrease performance)?
How about this:
explain analyze
select (select typname from pg_type where pg_type.oid=mainq.prorettype limit
1)
from (select * from pg_proc offset 1500 limit 1) mainq;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Subquery Scan mainq (cost=50.99..56.85 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=13.646..13.659 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Limit (cost=50.99..51.02 rows=1 width=310) (actual
time=13.575..13.579 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on pg_proc (cost=0.00..62.34 rows=1834 width=310)
(actual time=0.014..7.297 rows=1501 loops=1)
SubPlan
-> Limit (cost=0.00..5.82 rows=1 width=64) (actual time=0.038..0.043
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using pg_type_oid_index on pg_type
(cost=0.00..5.82 rows=1 width=64) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (oid = $0)
Total runtime: 13.785 ms
I would expect you to get closer to 2 ms on that query. My machine takes 13
ms to do just the seq scan of pg_proc.
Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Madison Kelly | 2006-11-02 15:14:49 | Setting "nice" values |
Previous Message | Robins | 2006-11-02 12:45:53 | Locking vs. Exceptions |