| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Very slow INFORMATION_SCHEMA |
| Date: | 2008-05-06 00:56:26 |
| Message-ID: | 5792.1210035386@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> I can confirm this for a quite larger result set (4020 rows) for a DB
> with 410 tables and a lot of foreign key constraints.
> ...
> This is Postgresql 8.2.4, on a Dual-Core XEON 3.6GHz. With nested_loops
> off, I get a very fast response (330ms).
FWIW, it looks like 8.3 is significantly smarter about this example
--- it's able to push the toplevel conditions on CONSTRAINT_SCHEMA
and CONSTRAINT_TYPE down inside the UNION, where 8.2 fails to do so.
Which is not to say that there's not more left to do on optimizing
the information_schema views. In this particular case, for example,
I wonder why the UNION in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_CONSTRAINTS isn't a
UNION ALL. There's probably a lot more such micro-optimizations that
could be done if anyone was motivated to look at it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin | 2008-05-06 02:01:49 | need to speed up query |
| Previous Message | Craig James | 2008-05-05 23:33:01 | RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers (was: Performance increase with elevator=deadline) |