Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Roman Fail <rfail(at)posportal(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow
Date: 2003-01-16 17:47:02
Message-ID: 20030116094210.L6318-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Roman,
>
> > > Hey, Roman, how many records in BatchDetail, anyway?
> >
> > 23 million.
>
> And MSSQL is returning results in 3 seconds? I find that a bit hard
> to believe, unless this query is called repeatedly and that's the
> figure for the last call, where the records are being cached. I'll
> have to look at your hardware descriptions again.
>
> > It seems to me that the big, big isolated problem is the index scan
> > on batchdetail.tranamount.
>
> Nope. This was a misimpression caused by batchdetail waiting for a
> bunch of other processes to complete. Sometimes the parallelizing
> gives me a wrong impression of what's holding up the query. Sorry if I
> confused you.

I'm still not sure that it isn't a big part given that the time went down
by a factor of about 4 when index scans were disabled and a sequence scan
was done and that a sequence scan over the table with no other tables
joined looked to take about 5 minutes itself and the difference between
that seqscan and the big query was only about 20 seconds when
enable_indexscan was off unless I'm misreading those results.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-01-16 17:52:47 Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-01-16 17:30:09 Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow