From: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-performance (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: select slow? |
Date: | 2004-03-31 17:27:01 |
Message-ID: | 20040331182701.A17746@bacon |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 31/03/2004 16:40 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jaime Casanova" <el_vigia_ec(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> > There are no indexes yet, and the table is just 6 rows long so even if
> > indexes exists the planner will do a seq scan. that's my whole point
> 63m for
> > seq scan in 6 rows table is too much.
>
> That was 63 milliseconds, according to your original post, which seems
> perfectly reasonable to me seeing that it's not a super-duper server.
>
> The problem sounds to be either on the client side or somewhere in your
> network. I don't know anything about VB, but you might want to look
> through the client-side operations to see what could be eating up the 13
> seconds.
Given that the client and server are on different machines, I'm wondering
the bulk of the 13 seconds is due a network mis-configuration or a very
slow DNS server...
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-03-31 23:26:53 | linux and anotime mount option |
Previous Message | Michael Guerin | 2004-03-31 17:17:54 | Estimated rows way off |