| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Durgamahesh Manne <maheshpostgres9(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Query optimization |
| Date: | 2025-03-14 14:00:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmmJM9xF2xpe48LkA6h0rLPJs9yPbuE7UWA9Gwz-Fzvo4Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:49 PM Durgamahesh Manne <
maheshpostgres9(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To return one row takes 43ms is not optimal
>
It's actually much faster than that, but even 43ms is overall good. The
query is already pretty optimal, as it uses a single index only scan. There
are a few tricks left to make this potentially faster, but you may want to
look into using some sort of in-memory caching system if your application
is that sensitive to timings. Or find us a version in which the execution
time is not 1/20th of a millisecond and we can work on that one.
Also take a look at pg_stat_statements so you can see how fast the query is
on average.
Cheers,
Greg
--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-14 15:42:07 | Re: Disabling vacuum truncate for autovacuum |
| Previous Message | mark bradley | 2025-03-14 12:10:21 | Re: Duplicate Key Values |