From: | Neto pr <netopr9(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Explain Analyze - actual time in loops |
Date: | 2017-09-08 14:02:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+wPC0Otv5=9yHu30t_ovCiMe=GL3EU7NgTY5mEH6M_4kymdFA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks for reply Tom and Igor.
Just only more information:
I need to know the height of a B-tree index (level of the leaf node
farthest from the root).
I tried to find this data in PG_INDEXES and PG_CLASS views, but I did not
find it.
Does anyone know if Postgresql stores this information, referring to the
height of the index tree?
Regards
2017-09-08 6:44 GMT-07:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Neto pr <netopr9(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > After analyzing, I saw that in some places of the plan, it is being used
> > Parallelism. Does this explain why the final value spent (in minutes) to
> go
> > through the index (184 minutes) is greater than the total query time (66
> > minutes)?
>
> I was just about to ask you about that. If this is under a Gather node,
> I believe that the numbers include time expended in all processes.
> So if you had three or more workers these results would make sense.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-08 14:07:30 | Re: Explain Analyze - actual time in loops |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-08 13:44:49 | Re: Explain Analyze - actual time in loops |