From: | Rory Campbell-Lange <rory(at)campbell-lange(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Query runs in 335ms; function in 100,239ms : date problem? |
Date: | 2011-09-05 22:40:43 |
Message-ID: | 20110905224043.GA26831@campbell-lange.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 05/09/11, Rory Campbell-Lange (rory(at)campbell-lange(dot)net) wrote:
> On 05/09/11, Tomas Vondra (tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz) wrote:
> > On 5 Zá??í 2011, 23:07, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> ...
> > > The query itself runs in about a 1/3rd of a second. When running the
> > > query as a 'RETURN QUERY' function on Postgres 8.4, the function runs in
> > > over 100 seconds, about 300 times slower.
...
> > Try to run it as a prepared query - I guess you'll get about the same run
> > time as with the function (i.e. over 100 seconds).
>
> The prepared query runs in almost exactly the same time as the function,
> but thanks for the suggestion. A very useful aspect of it is that I was
> able to get the EXPLAIN output which I guess gives a fairly good picture
> of the plan used for the function.
>
> The explain output is here:
> http://campbell-lange.net/media/files/explain.txt.html
>
> I'm inexperienced in reading EXPLAIN output, but it looks like the
> Nested Loop Semi Join at line 72 is running very slowly.
I added in more filtering conditions to the clause at line 72 and the
prepared statement dropped in runtime to 24043.902 ms. Unfortunately the
function ran slower -- 47957.796 -- but even that is a 50% improvement.
Thanks very much for your help.
Regards
Rory
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-09-06 00:15:34 | Re: Query runs in 335ms; function in 100,239ms : date problem? |
Previous Message | Rory Campbell-Lange | 2011-09-05 22:27:16 | Re: Query runs in 335ms; function in 100,239ms : date problem? |