| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | dev(at)kbsolutions(dot)ch |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: update from select |
| Date: | 2007-10-29 18:42:57 |
| Message-ID: | 14485.1193683377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
<dev(at)kbsolutions(dot)ch> writes:
> Hash Join (cost=10827.45..25950.05 rows=4906 width=1191) (actual
> time=586.251..2852.691 rows=111306 loops=1)
> ...
> Total runtime: 633548.404 ms
So you're worried about the wrong thing entirely. The query is taking
less than 3 seconds, which may be reasonable considering it's producing
111000 join rows. The big problem is the other 630 seconds, which is
evidently update overhead. I'm wondering if you have any triggers or
foreign keys leading to or from this table.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fernando Hevia | 2007-10-30 20:42:18 | Perfomance benefit using Min() against order by & limit 1? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-10-29 15:46:31 | Re: update from select |