From: | "Bucky Jordan" <bjordan(at)lumeta(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | <bujordan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Query Progress (was: Performance With Joins on Large Tables) |
Date: | 2006-09-13 18:19:04 |
Message-ID: | 78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4104D08@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Setting to 0.1 finally gave me the result I was looking for. I know
that the index scan is faster though. The seq scan never finished (i
killed it after 24+ hours) and I'm running the query now with indexes
and it's progressing nicely (will probably take 4 hours).
In regards to "progressing nicely (will probably take 4 hours)" - is
this just an estimate or is there some way to get progress status (or
something similar- e.g. on step 6 of 20 planned steps) on a query in pg?
I looked through Chap 24, Monitoring DB Activity, but most of that looks
like aggregate stats. Trying to relate these to a particular query
doesn't really seem feasible.
This would be useful in the case where you have a couple of long running
transactions or stored procedures doing analysis and you'd like to give
the user some feedback where you're at.
Thanks,
Bucky
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marcin Mank | 2006-09-13 18:39:59 | Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables |
Previous Message | Christoph Nelles | 2006-09-13 17:36:29 | Unsubscribe |