Re: Zero throughput on a query on a very large table.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com" <ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Zero throughput on a query on a very large table.
Date: 2019-01-25 18:34:01
Message-ID: 3630.1548441241@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com" <ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com> writes:
> Also, the original statement i implemented did not have all of that. This is the normalized SQL that Postgres now gives when looking at the indices.

[ squint... ] What do you mean exactly by "Postgres gives that"?
I don't see any redundant COLLATE clauses in e.g. psql \d.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ldh@laurent-hasson.com 2019-01-25 18:36:21 Re: Zero throughput on a query on a very large table.
Previous Message ldh@laurent-hasson.com 2019-01-25 18:29:12 Re: Zero throughput on a query on a very large table.