| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Faulkner <chrisf(at)oramap(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pgsql-Sql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache |
| Date: | 2003-10-11 11:26:23 |
| Message-ID: | 3F87E8DF.5080608@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..147.11 rows=1 width=148) (actual
> time=84.00..12323.00 rows=67 loops=1)
The planner estimate doesn't seem to match reality in that particular
step. Are you sure you've run:
ANALYZE oscar_node;
ANALYZE oscar_point;
And you could even run VACUUM FULL on them just to make sure.
Does that make any difference?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-11 11:26:29 | Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache |
| Previous Message | Chris Faulkner | 2003-10-11 11:12:01 | Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-11 11:26:29 | Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache |
| Previous Message | Chris Faulkner | 2003-10-11 11:12:01 | Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache |