Re: Query performance PLEASE HELP

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query performance PLEASE HELP
Date: 2003-01-31 18:17:18
Message-ID: 19603.1044037038@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> writes:
> Explain analyze says:

> Limit (cost=61.91..61.91 rows=1 width=192) (actual time=439435.47..439435.50 rows=10 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=61.91..61.91 rows=1 width=192) (actual time=439435.47..439435.48 rows=11 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..61.90 rows=1 width=192) (actual time=7589.68..439423.75 rows=110 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using managed_supplier_idx on managed_supplier ms (cost=0.00..22.02 rows=5 width=157) (actual time=6.72..3009.90 rows=14365 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using tradestyle_duns_idx on tradestyle ts (cost=0.00..6.97 rows=1 width=35) (actual time=30.34..30.37 rows=0 loops=14365)
> Total runtime: 439436.45 msec

Judging from the tiny cost estimates, the planner thinks these tables
are tiny. Have you done a VACUUM ANALYZE lately?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Childs 2003-01-31 18:17:55 History
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-01-31 17:34:28 Re: One large v. many small