From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | arnaulist(at)andromeiberica(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is it possible to speed this query up? |
Date: | 2006-07-26 20:24:47 |
Message-ID: | 17741.1153945487@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Arnau <arnaulist(at)andromeiberica(dot)com> writes:
> the explain analyze shouts the following:
The expensive part appears to be this indexscan:
> -> Index Scan using pk_agndusrgrp_usergroup on
> agenda_users_groups ug (cost=0.00..123740.26 rows=2936058 width=30)
> (actual time=0.101..61921.260 rows=2836638 loops=1)
Since there's no index condition, the planner is evidently using this
scan just to obtain sort order. I think ordinarily it would use a
seqscan and then sort the final result, which'd be a lot faster if the
whole result were being selected. But you have a LIMIT and it's
mistakenly guessing that only a small part of the table will need to be
scanned before the LIMIT is satisfied.
Bottom line: try dropping the LIMIT. If you really need the limit to be
enforced on the SQL side, you could try declaring the query as a cursor
and only fetching 150 rows from it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eliott | 2006-07-27 14:23:28 | performance issue with a specific query |
Previous Message | Arnau | 2006-07-26 17:01:33 | Is it possible to speed this query up? |