From: | Tim Kane <tim(dot)kane(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Constraint exclusion won't exclude parent table |
Date: | 2014-05-13 20:57:10 |
Message-ID: | CF9840D4.7F03D%tim.kane@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
>
> Yeah, it's not expected that that's going to cost much. I am suspicious
> that what you are looking at is mostly measurement overhead: during
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE, each plan node has to do two gettimeofday() calls per
> call, and there are lots of platforms where that is significant relative
> to the actual work done per node.
>
> You might try comparing the overall times for select count(*) from ...
> rather than EXPLAIN ANALYZE for these two cases. If those times are
> much closer together than what you're getting from EXPLAIN ANALYZE,
> then you've got a machine with expensive gettimeofday() and you have
> to take your measurements with an appropriate quantum of salt.
>
> regards, tom lane
Interesting..
Direct query:
Time: 374336.514 ms
Indirect query:
Time: 387114.059 ms
Mystery solved. Thanks again Tom.
For what it’s worth: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 Debian 3.2.46-1+deb7u1 x86_64
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Owens | 2014-05-13 23:04:50 | Re: CPU spikes and transactions |
Previous Message | Tim Kane | 2014-05-13 20:33:58 | Re: Adaptive query execution |