From: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | nickf(at)ontko(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
Date: | 2003-09-04 15:01:13 |
Message-ID: | 3F5753B9.F4A5A63F@nsd.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
You forgot that the original poster's query was:
SELECT * from <table>
This should require a simple table scan. NO need for stats.
Either the table has not been properly vacuumed or he's got seq_scan
off...
JLL
Nick Fankhauser wrote:
>
> > Yes I Analyze also, but there was no need to because it was a fresh brand
> > new database.
>
> This apparently wasn't the source of problem since he did an analyze anyway,
> but my impression was that a fresh brand new database is exactly the
> situation where an analyze is needed- ie: a batch of data has just been
> loaded and stats haven't been collected yet.
>
> Am I mistaken?
>
> -Nick
>
> ---------------------------(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)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Relaxin | 2003-09-04 15:05:15 | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
Previous Message | Relaxin | 2003-09-04 14:35:24 | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |