Re: make query faster??

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  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