From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: explain analyze output: 0 rows, 1M loops |
Date: | 2017-11-01 19:25:25 |
Message-ID: | 20171101192525.GR21735@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:19:21PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > So some of my output from an explain analyze here has a line that says
> > this:
> >
> > ex Scan using warranty_order_item_warranty_order_id_idx on
> > warranty_order_item woi_1 (cost=0.57..277.53 rows=6 width=137) (actual
> > time=0.110..0.111 rows=0 loops=1,010,844)
> >
>
> Not my strong suit but, I'm pretty sure that reads: "The index was queried
> 1M+ times and none of those inqueries resulted in a record being found".
> IIUC I'd be wondering why some form of hash join wasn't used...
Except that:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/using-explain.html
"... the loops value reports the total number of executions of the node, and
the actual time and ROWS VALUES SHOWN ARE AVERAGES PER-EXECUTION."
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-11-01 19:31:00 | Re: explain analyze output: 0 rows, 1M loops |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-11-01 19:19:21 | Re: explain analyze output: 0 rows, 1M loopa |