From: | "Edoardo Ceccarelli" <eddy(at)axa(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | "'Sam Barnett-Cormack'" <s(dot)barnett-cormack(at)lancaster(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
Cc: | <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | R: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize |
Date: | 2004-02-05 01:06:53 |
Message-ID: | 2s28b9$kqljc@mailr-1.tiscali.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------
> > --------------------
> > Seq Scan on utente (cost=0.00..92174.50 rows=3 width=724) (actual
> > time=705.41..6458.19 rows=15 loops=1)
> > Filter: (luogorilasciodoc = 'ciao'::bpchar) Total
> runtime: 6458.29
> > msec
> > (3 rows
> >
> > Things are worst only for seqscan, when it uses indexscan
> timing is good.
>
> Only thing I can think of is if storage method had been
> changed. Not sure if that would even affect it, or if it
> could do that by itself.
> Just brainstorming.
>
Do you know how can I check if the storage method has changed?
I was thinking that the priority target of a vacuum operation is to reclaim disk space
- this might imply that the performance are worst for a seqscan - maybe it's normal.
Anyway, I am doing a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE right now to see if things get better.
Thanks for you hints
Edoardo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edoardo Ceccarelli | 2004-02-05 02:10:13 | R: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize |
Previous Message | Sam Barnett-Cormack | 2004-02-05 00:56:42 | Re: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize |