From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mark Dobbrow" <mdobbrow(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large table performance |
Date: | 2007-01-14 19:02:24 |
Message-ID: | C1CFBE40.1805B%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mark,
This behavior likely depends on how the data is loaded into the DBMS. If
the records you are fetching are distributed widely among the 3M records on
disk, then
On 1/12/07 4:31 PM, "Mark Dobbrow" <mdobbrow(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello -
>
> I have a fairly large table (3 million records), and am fetching 10,000
> non-contigous records doing a simple select on an indexed column ie
>
> select grades from large_table where teacher_id = X
>
> This is a test database, so the number of records is always 10,000 and i have
> 300 different teacher ids.
>
> The problem is, sometimes fetching un-cached records takes 0.5 secs and
> sometimes (more often) is takes more like 10.0 seconds
>
> (fetching the same records for a given teacher_id a second time takes about
> 0.25 secs)
>
> Has anyone seen similar behavior or know what the solution might be?
>
> any help much appreciated,
> Mark
>
>
>
> ps. My shared_buffers is set at 5000 (kernal max), and work_mem=8192
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-01-14 19:20:35 | Re: Large table performance |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2007-01-14 16:52:52 | Re: Problem with grouping, uses Sort and GroupAggregate, HashAggregate is better(?) |