Re: Performance aggregates

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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