From: | Pailloncy Jean-Gérard <pailloncy(at)ifrance(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index Backward Scan fast / Index Scan slow ! (Modifié par Pailloncy Jean-Gérard) |
Date: | 2004-04-12 19:02:02 |
Message-ID: | 1D4DEBDC-8CB4-11D8-80FD-000A95DE2550@ifrance.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
> In 7.4 a VACUUM should be sufficient ... or at least, if it isn't
Atfer VACUUM:
dps=# explain analyze select next_index_time from url order by
next_index_time desc limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Limit (cost=0.00..2.62 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.098..0.099
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan Backward using url_next_index_time on url
(cost=0.00..814591.03 rows=310913 width=4) (actual time=0.096..0.096
rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.195 ms
(3 rows)
dps=# explain analyze select next_index_time from url order by
next_index_time asc limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Limit (cost=0.00..2.62 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=13504.105..13504.106 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using url_next_index_time on url
(cost=0.00..814591.03 rows=310913 width=4) (actual
time=13504.099..13504.099 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 13504.158 ms
(3 rows)
Better, but......
Cordialement,
Jean-Gérard Pailloncy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Dunn | 2004-04-12 19:05:02 | Re: index v. seqscan for certain values |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-12 17:51:28 | Re: index v. seqscan for certain values |