| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ceri Storey <cez-misc(dot)pgsql-perf(at)necrofish(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Ceri Storey <cez(at)necrofish(dot)org(dot)uk>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Join optimisation Quandry |
| Date: | 2004-01-19 02:21:00 |
| Message-ID: | 18213.1074478860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ceri Storey <cez-misc(dot)pgsql-perf(at)necrofish(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> Although, as I've just found, another bottleneck is the title table.
> PostgreSQL seems to inst on doing a Seq Scan on the entire table.
> -> Seq Scan on tid (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=8) (actual time=0.028..10.457 rows=17 loops=1)
It doesn't look like you've ever vacuumed or analyzed "tid" --- those
are the default cost and rows estimates. Although I'm unsure whether
the plan would change much if you had.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-01-19 23:58:44 | Re: COUNT & Pagination |
| Previous Message | John Siracusa | 2004-01-17 21:33:56 | Re: Idle postmaster taking up a lot of CPU |