From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | DI Hasenöhrl <i(dot)hasenoehrl(at)aon(dot)at> |
Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: make query faster?? |
Date: | 2001-12-05 18:28:54 |
Message-ID: | 20011205101538.S16316-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-1] DI Hasenhrl wrote:
> Thank you for your response, but I'm not quite clear.
>
> Is *sort_mem* the same as postgres' starting option -S *Sortsize*,
> which is by default 512Kb
> At this time I increased sortsize to 1024Kb, but the costs from
> explain are the same as before and I can't see, that the query is
> faster
IIRC the explain costs may not change. If your table really only
has 4000 rows, I don't see why it would need to drop off to disk,
but while the query is running, you can see if pg_sorttemp* files
are being created under your data directory (which would show
that it is going out to disk and that you may need to raise -S
again). Otherwise, is the data involved something you can share?
It might help for us to be able to try it elsewhere to see how
it performs.
> Please, can you explain, what *cost=341.63..341.63* means
It's an estimate of cost. I believe the first is startup cost
and the last total cost. You probably want to read the performance
tips section of the user's guide.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Roberto Mello | 2001-12-05 19:37:03 | Getting matching and non-matching results (long) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-05 18:17:05 | Re: Any patch for delete and insert same row in a function ( transaction |