| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Luigi N(dot) Puleio" <npuleio(at)rocketmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN detail |
| Date: | 2008-04-09 10:28:36 |
| Message-ID: | 47FC9A54.40006@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Anyways, I don't think there is much
> tweaking you can do for such a query except making sure that
> your table is not bloated with dead tuples.
To the OP:
More explicitly: Make sure you use autovacuum or run VACUUM manually on
the table periodically.
Would I be correct in suspecting that your real problem is with a more
meaningful and complex query, and the one you've posted is
oversimplifying what you are trying to do? If that is the case, and
you're having problems with queries that do more real work than this one
does, maybe you should post EXPLAIN ANALYZE output from such a real
world query.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew | 2008-04-09 10:33:43 | Re: EXPLAIN detail |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-04-09 10:04:06 | Re: EXPLAIN detail |