From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Aaron Bono" <postgresql(at)aranya(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL SQL List" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan |
Date: | 2007-05-06 00:22:50 |
Message-ID: | 29507.1178410970@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
"Aaron Bono" <postgresql(at)aranya(dot)com> writes:
> 9. -> Seq Scan on branch (cost=0.00..4.72 rows=1
> width=1281) (actual time=130129.988..157492.057 rows=1 loops=1)
> 10. Filter: ((start_day <= now()) AND
> ((end_day IS NULL) OR (end_day >= now())) AND (branch_id =
> get_branch_for_zip('22151'::character varying)))
There is something *awfully* wacko about that entry --- the fact that
the cost estimate is less than 5 units means that the planner thinks
there's 4 or fewer pages; either that's way wrong or the
get_branch_for_zip function is taking enormous amounts of time per row.
Have you tried timing that function on its own?
One possible reason for the performance difference is if you have
get_branch_for_zip marked as stable in one database and volatile in the
other --- volatile would prevent it from being used in an indexqual as
you'd like.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-05-06 00:40:53 | Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan |
Previous Message | Aaron Bono | 2007-05-05 22:00:53 | Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan |