From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: slow information schema with thausand users, seq.scan pg_authid |
Date: | 2006-02-06 13:49:13 |
Message-ID: | 200602061449.13600.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I know so db 500 000 users isn't normal situation, but I need it.
> After user's generation all selects on system's catalog are slow. For
> example: list of sequences
>
> SELECT n.nspname as "Schema",
> c.relname as "Name",
> CASE c.relkind WHEN 'r' THEN 'table' WHEN 'v' THEN 'view' WHEN 'i'
> THEN 'index' WHEN 'S' THEN 'sequence' WHEN 's' THEN 'special' END as
> "Type", r.rolname as "Owner"
> FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c
> LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_roles r ON r.oid = c.relowner
> LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_namespace n ON n.oid = c.relnamespace
> WHERE c.relkind IN ('S','')
> AND n.nspname NOT IN ('pg_catalog', 'pg_toast')
> AND pg_catalog.pg_table_is_visible(c.oid)
> ORDER BY 1,2;
I suggest that your problem is the join order (unless you have 500000
tables as well). Moreover, using left joins instead of inner joins
seems to be quite useless unless you plan to have tables that are not
owned by anyone and are not in a schema.
> there is any possibility creating index for pg_authid?
It already has indexes.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-02-06 14:13:21 | Re: slow information schema with thausand users, seq.scan pg_authid |
Previous Message | Richard Hills | 2006-02-06 13:42:55 | Re: Shared memory and memory context question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-02-06 14:13:21 | Re: slow information schema with thausand users, seq.scan pg_authid |
Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2006-02-06 11:15:52 | Re: Number format problem |