| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Henry Drexler <alonup8tb(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size? |
| Date: | 2012-11-30 18:42:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1y3i6x5LDUBgV_MbRiBOxPdaebpqAsiU8qnV06f-WUSpA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Henry Drexler <alonup8tb(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello, and thank you in advance.
>
>
> Beyond the date vs timestamp troubleshooting I did, I am not sure what else
> to look for, I know the increase of rows will have some affect but I just
> don't think the query should go from 4 minutes to over 50.
If the doubling of the size causes it to exceed the cache, when before
it did not, that could easily explain it.
...
> and
> massive.dateof <@ '(2012-07-22 17:00:00,2012-07-29 17:00:00]'::tsrange;
I don't think the <@ can use the btree index, but if you wrote it as a
"BETWEEN" it could.
> With a query plan of:
> "Index Scan using customer_id_sourcee on massive_m (cost=0.00..113.98
> rows=1 width=28)"
Can you report the EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) instead?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Igor Neyman | 2012-11-30 19:33:17 | Re: pg_listening_channels() |
| Previous Message | hartrc | 2012-11-30 18:28:45 | pg_basebackup questions |