From: | Richard van den Berg <richard(dot)vandenberg(at)trust-factory(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-perform <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: When are index scans used over seq scans? |
Date: | 2005-04-20 15:54:45 |
Message-ID: | 42667B45.5050101@trust-factory.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The explain shows no such thing. What is the *actual* runtime of
> each plan per EXPLAIN ANALYZE, please?
I took a simplified version of the problem (the actual query that took 6
hours joins 3 tables). With cpu_tuple_cost = 0.1:
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..667700310.42 rows=1035480320 width=97) (actual
time=31.468..42629.629 rows=6171334 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on sessions us (cost=0.00..125756.60 rows=924536
width=105) (actual time=31.366..3293.523 rows=924536 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ix_du_ts on duration du (cost=0.00..604.46
rows=1120 width=8) (actual time=0.004..0.011 rows=7 loops=924536)
Index Cond: (("outer".starttimetrunc <= du.ts) AND
("outer".finishtimetrunc >= du.ts))
Total runtime: 44337.937 ms
The explain analyze for cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 is running now. If it
takes hours, I'll send it to the list tomorrow.
--
Richard van den Berg, CISSP
-------------------------------------------
Trust Factory B.V. | www.dna-portal.net
Bazarstraat 44a | www.trust-factory.com
2518AK The Hague | Phone: +31 70 3620684
The Netherlands | Fax : +31 70 3603009
-------------------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christian Sander Røsnes | 2005-04-20 16:14:12 | Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-20 15:50:26 | Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?) |