From: | Jeff Amiel <jamiel(at)istreamimaging(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | oddly high cost but low actual_time (but not in slony replicants) |
Date: | 2008-03-26 18:23:22 |
Message-ID: | 47EA949A.80602@istreamimaging.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Only 19 rows in the table.....
explain analyze select * from table_a;
"Seq Scan on table_a (cost=100000000.00..100000001.02 rows=19
width=103) (actual time=0.007..0.012 rows=19 loops=1)"
"Total runtime: 0.040 ms"
If I run the same query on the same table in a different database that I
pg_restored from a recent dump...same results
"Seq Scan on table_a (cost=100000000.00..100000001.02 rows=20
width=135) (actual time=0.009..0.011 rows=20 loops=1)"
"Total runtime: 0.046 ms"
But if I run from a slony replicated node...
"Seq Scan on table_a (cost=0.00..1.20 rows=20 width=103)"
Weird......
No indexes on the table except the primary key (bigserial)...
Not that it has any impact but wherever I get the high cost it is
running on Solaris with the database on a zfs mounted SAN
"PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i386-pc-solaris2.10, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
3.4.3 (csl-sol210-3_4-branch+sol_rpath)"
Low cost comes from FreeBSD nodes running database locally
"PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i386-portbld-freebsd6.0, compiled by GCC cc (GCC)
3.4.4 [FreeBSD] 20050518"
It appears that may of my tables exhibit this characteristic...
If, however, I use any REAL indexes, cost is much more 'normal'.....
any ideas?
I'm not really worried...but I was troubleshooting a high-cost query
that led me to this table specifically.....
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyle.Wilcox | 2008-03-26 18:28:11 | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-03-26 18:17:34 | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |