From: | Fabian Kreitner <fabian(dot)kreitner(at)ainea-ag(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index / sequential scan problem |
Date: | 2003-07-17 11:13:06 |
Message-ID: | 5.1.0.14.0.20030717131157.03957fa0@195.145.148.245 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
At 12:12 17.07.2003, you wrote:
>On 17/07/2003 10:01 Fabian Kreitner wrote:
>
>Hi Fabian,
>
>When you are doing these kinds of tests, you need to be aware that the
>kernel may have most of your data cached after the first query and this
>may be why the second query appears to run faster.
I thought of this too, but executions times wont change with repeating /
alternating these two tests.
>Also don't be worried if the planner chooses a seq scan for small tables
>as the whole table can often be bought into memory with one IO whereas
>reading the index then the table would be 2 IOs. HTH
That is what I read too and is why Im confused that the index is indeed
executing faster. Can this be a problem with the hardware and/or postgress
installation?
Thanks,
Fabian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-07-17 11:18:42 | Re: index / sequential scan problem |
Previous Message | Fabian Kreitner | 2003-07-17 11:12:10 | Re: index / sequential scan problem |