| From: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Samuel Stearns <sstearns(at)staff(dot)iinet(dot)net(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 57 minute SELECT |
| Date: | 2013-10-03 12:59:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20131003125918.GG16128@aart.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:19:29AM +0000, Samuel Stearns wrote:
> Thanks, Claudio.
>
> I'll have a look at the clustering.
>
> We have also noticed that the same query with a datetime range of 3 hours (rather than 4 months) runs in just 30 seconds:
>
> AND datetime <= '2013-10-03 10:03:49'
> AND datetime >= '2013-10-03 07:03:49'
>
Hi Samuel,
That is even worse performance relatively. 30s for a 3 hour range equals
28800s for a 4 month (2880 hours) range, or 8 hours. I definitely would
consider clustering.
Regards,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kerr | 2013-10-03 16:20:52 | Re: 57 minute SELECT |
| Previous Message | Ivan Voras | 2013-10-03 10:08:01 | Re: 57 minute SELECT |