From: | Jeff Trout <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amit V Shah <ashah(at)tagaudit(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Joining 2 tables with 300 million rows |
Date: | 2005-12-09 15:32:12 |
Message-ID: | B2700001-9328-44C3-B90A-BFD49A6FC5F5@torgo.978.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Dec 8, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Amit V Shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The thing is, although it shows 0.15 seconds, when I run the actual
> query,
> it takes around 40-45 seconds (sorry I forgot to mention that). And
> then
> sometimes it depends on data. Some parameters have very less number of
> records, and others have lot more. I dont know how to read the
> "explan"
> results very well, but looked like there were no sequential scans
> and it
> only used indexes.
>
The planner will look at the data you used and it may decide to
switch the plan if it realizes your're quering a very frequent value.
Another thing that may be a factor is the network - when doing
explain analyze it doesn't have to transfer the dataset to the client.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank Wiles | 2005-12-09 15:47:18 | Re: opinion on disk speed |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-12-09 15:06:07 | Re: Query not using index |