From: | William Ivanski <william(dot)ivanski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | vinny <vinny(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Trim performance on 9.5 |
Date: | 2016-11-18 15:58:03 |
Message-ID: | CACaWZ9Qi6343oipj9qos73_tCuza1u5ZWdHJ75TOd8ZoxmUV-g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I just ran EXPLAIN ANALYZE, please see images attached. Field doesn't have
a index.
Em sex, 18 de nov de 2016 às 12:16, vinny <vinny(at)xs4all(dot)nl> escreveu:
> On 2016-11-18 15:06, William Ivanski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently did major improvements on perfomance on our routines by
> > simply removing the call for trim functions on specific bottlenecks.
> > Please see images attached for a simple example.
> >
> > I'm using PostgreSQL version 9.5.5-1.pgdg80+1 on Debian 8.6. Someone
> > knows if it's a bug on trim function? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > --
> >
> > William Ivanski
>
> Did you run EXPLAIN on these queries?
>
> I'm guessing that you have an index on the field, but not on
> TRIM(field),
> which would mean that the database is forced to seqscan to fetch every
> row value, trim it and then compare it.
>
--
William Ivanski
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
![]() |
image/png | 42.2 KB |
![]() |
image/png | 43.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Jungwirth | 2016-11-18 17:16:23 | Avoiding double-counting in aggregates with more than one join? |
Previous Message | Vick Khera | 2016-11-18 15:14:11 | Re: pgbench and scaling |