From: | Ryan Mahoney <ryan(at)paymentalliance(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | snpe <snpe(at)infosky(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance aggregates |
Date: | 2001-05-15 14:48:39 |
Message-ID: | 5.0.2.1.0.20010515150655.046f1060@paymentalliance.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
If your query is not using the correct index files, you're query will run
slowly. Please post the output from EXPLAIN.
-r
At 09:00 PM 5/15/01 +0200, snpe wrote:
>On Tuesday 15 May 2001 17:28, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2001, snpe wrote:
> > > Table e_kalkn have 4668 rows and e_kalkns 101170 rows.
> > >
> > > Query :
> > >
> > > select roba,sum(izn)
> > > from e_kalkn k,e_kalkns ks
> > > where k.id=ks.id
> > > group by roba
> > > order by roba
> > >
> > > is 2.5 times faster on one commercial database (there are tests on
> > > Internet that say 'Postgresql is faster than that database).
> > > I can't say which database it is.
> >
> > Have you run vacuum analyze (since loading the data) and what does explain
> > show for the query. Also, what version are you using?
> >
>version postgresql 7.1.1
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com)
>Version: 6.0.251 / Virus Database: 124 - Release Date: 4/26/01
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unknown_filename | text/plain | 166 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2001-05-15 15:05:03 | locking a dropped table |
Previous Message | Jean-Arthur Silve | 2001-05-15 14:17:22 | Not a PG question: SCSI question |