From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |
Date: | 2003-11-11 00:19:56 |
Message-ID: | 20031110201945.X727@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > -> Index Scan using tl_month on traffic_logs ts (cost=0.00..30763.02 rows=8213 width=16) (actual time=0.29..5562.25 rows=462198 loops=1)
> > Index Cond: (month_trunc(runtime) = '2003-10-01 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone)
>
> Interesting that we get the row count estimate for this index scan so
> wrong -- I believe this is the root of the problem. Hmmm... I would
> guess that the optimizer stats we have for estimating the selectivity
> of a functional index is pretty primitive, but I haven't looked into
> it at all. Tom might be able to shed some light...
>
> [ In the second EXPLAIN ANALYZE, ... ]
>
> > -> Seq Scan on traffic_logs ts (cost=0.00..38340.72 rows=8213 width=16) (actual time=5.02..-645982.04 rows=462198 loops=1)
> > Filter: (date_trunc('month'::text, runtime) = '2003-10-01 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone)
>
> Uh, what? The "actual time" seems to have finished far before it has
> begun :-) Is this just a typo, or does the actual output include a
> negative number?
This was purely a cut-n-paste ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-11 00:28:07 | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-10 23:42:09 | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |