Re: [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed. What am I doing

From: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed. What am I doing
Date: 2003-01-07 22:42:45
Message-ID: 3E1B57E5.A5B673B3@nsd.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

There is a construct that most people forget for that kind of query:

select "RT_REC_KEY", "cnxarraycolumn", "CRC" from a
except
select "RT_REC_KEY", "cnxarraycolumn", "CRC" from b;

simple.

JLL

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
> > Yikes! Five times slower! But then I took Tom's incredibly helpful
> > suggestion to disable the sequential scan:
>
> Ideally, you shouldn't have to do that. Now that you have the correct
> indexes in place, could you show us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for both
> cases (enable_seqscan = on and off)?
>
> Also, you might try leaving enable_seqscan = on, and seeing how far you
> have to decrease random_page_cost to get the planner to choose
> indexscan.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Achilleus Mantzios 2003-01-07 22:51:35 Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] 7.3.1 index use / performance
Previous Message Achilleus Mantzios 2003-01-07 22:38:17 Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] 7.3.1 index use / performance

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vince Vielhaber 2003-01-07 22:46:49 Re: PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
Previous Message mlw 2003-01-07 22:33:18 Re: PostgreSQL and memory usage