From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heiko Kehlenbrink <Heiko(dot)Kehlenbrink(at)vermes(dot)fh-oldenburg(dot)de>, Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: performance comparission postgresql/ms-sql server |
Date: | 2004-04-06 07:27:13 |
Message-ID: | 40725BD1.3050008@frodo.hserus.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Heiko Kehlenbrink wrote:
> hkehlenbrink(at)lin0493l:~> psql -d test -c 'explain analyse select avg(dist)
> from massive2 where dist > (1000000*sqrt(3.0))::float8 and dist <
> (1500000*sqrt(3.0))::float8;'
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Aggregate (cost=14884.61..14884.61 rows=1 width=8) (actual
> time=3133.24..3133.24 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using massive2_dist on massive2 (cost=0.00..13648.17
> rows=494573 width=8) (actual time=0.11..2061.38 rows=499999 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 3133.79 msec
>
> EXPLAIN
>
> seems to me that most time was needed for the index scanning...
Hmm... I would suggest if you are testing, you should try 7.4.2. 7.4 has some
good optimisation for hash agregates though I am not sure if it apply to averaging.
Also try forcing a seq. scan by turning off index scan. I guess index scan for
so many rows is not exactly good thing even if tuple size if pretty small.
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | huang yaqin | 2004-04-06 08:01:34 | good pc but bad performance,why? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-06 05:47:22 | Re: possible improvement between G4 and G5 |