Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size?

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Henry Drexler <alonup8tb(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Can you report the EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) instead?
>
>
> Thanks, here they are:
>
> for the approx 65 million row approx 50 min version:
>
> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
> select
> massive_expansion(ctn,the_range)
> from
> critical_visitors;
>
> "Seq Scan on critical_visitors (cost=0.00..168722.28 rows=628778 width=40)
> (actual time=0.655..3003921.066 rows=628778 loops=1)"
> " Buffers: shared hit=4513040 read=1591722 dirtied=5234 written=10"
> "Total runtime: 3004478.053 ms"
>
>
> for the approx 30 million row approx 4 min version:
>
> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
> select
> massive_expansion(ctn,the_range)
> from
> critical_visitors;
>
> "Seq Scan on critical_visitors (cost=0.00..746587.90 rows=2782315 width=40)
> (actual time=393.001..277108.379 rows=2782315 loops=1)"
> " Buffers: shared hit=26370078 read=400301 dirtied=33772 written=1030"
> "Total runtime: 278988.544 ms"
>

I can't much sense out of those. Could you do it for the recursive
SQL (the one inside the function) like you had previously done for the
regular explain?

Cheers,

Jeff