From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gary Stainburn <gary(dot)stainburn(at)ringways(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: select slows from 3 seconds to 30 seconds |
Date: | 2007-05-05 00:57:07 |
Message-ID: | 12822.1178326627@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Gary Stainburn <gary(dot)stainburn(at)ringways(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I have the query below which when run takes approx 3 seconds. However when I
> add the condition 'and w_ws_id = 10' onto the end changes to 30+ seconds.
> Can anyone see why? I've included the explain for the long select.
You really ought to provide EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for both versions if
you want intelligent commentary --- otherwise we're just guessing.
But I would guess the problem is that the planner is way off about the
number of rows satisfying the joint condition --- it thinks two:
> -> Index Scan using walon_hide_index on walon (cost=0.00..85.04 rows=2 width=140)
> Index Cond: (w_hide = 0)
> Filter: (w_ws_id = 10)
This plan is good if there really are only a couple rows, but degrades
quickly if there are many...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aaron Bono | 2007-05-05 21:05:52 | Sequence vs. Index Scan |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2007-05-04 22:16:51 | Re: Insert into VIEW using RULE. Not possible to use nextval()? |