| From: | Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: explain ? |
| Date: | 2003-04-19 23:18:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20030420001830.A24853@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> > I created an index on firsttimei, vacuum full analysed, and explain showed me
> > *exactly* the same thing(!) The difference being that the query is now
> > lightning fast :-)
>
> Perhaps the vacuum got rid of a whole bunch of dead rows?
I had done a vacuum full earlier.. and by dog slow versus lightning
fast, I mean 1 unit of data inserted in just over an hour versus
8.6 units of data inserted in 2 mins 29 seconds(!) Well, I'm
certainly not complaining!
Cheers,
Patrick
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-04-20 01:13:37 | Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used |
| Previous Message | nolan | 2003-04-19 20:54:41 | Re: stddev returns 0 when there is one row |