From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Seqscan slowness and stored procedures |
Date: | 2012-05-27 16:07:29 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCnJC2oStrgy=w-4o3qtiQ5P6nBnBE=g4rTAngPjPMjxA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2012/5/27 Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>:
> On 27 May 2012 05:28, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> 2012/5/26 Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
>>> code directly (outside a function), this is the "normal", default plan:
>>>
>>> http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
>>>
>>> and this is the plain with enable_seqscan turned off:
>>>
>>> http://explain.depesz.com/s/EFP (27 ms)
>>>
>>> Disabling seqscan results in almost 2.5x faster execution.
>>>
>>> However, when this code is wrapped in a function, the execution time is
>>> closer to the second case (which is great, I'm not complaining):
>>>
>>
>> see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-12/msg01189.php
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for your answer, but if you read my post, you'll hopefully
> realize my questions are different from that in the linked post, and
> are not answered by the post.
yes, sorry,
Pavel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2012-05-28 12:14:05 | Re: SSD selection |
Previous Message | Ivan Voras | 2012-05-27 15:57:55 | Re: Seqscan slowness and stored procedures |