From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Neto pr <netopr9(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Explain Analyze - actual time in loops |
Date: | 2017-09-08 12:46:45 |
Message-ID: | DM5PR17MB14993F6FD18158C593907D85DA950@DM5PR17MB1499.namprd17.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Neto pr
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 11:17 PM
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [PERFORM] Explain Analyze - actual time in loops
…
################################ ###################################
-> Index Scan using idx_l_partkeylineitem000x on lineitem (cost = 0.57..97.65 rows = 26 width = 36)
(current time = 23.615..419.113 rows = 30 loops = 26469)
Index Cond: (l_partkey = part.p_partkey)
################################################## #################
According to the documentation, one should multiply the Actual Time by the number of Loops.
That is: 419113 ms -> 419113/1000/60 = 6.9 minutes * 26469 (loops) = 182.6 minutes.
But how does this stretch take 182.6 minutes, if the entire query ran in 66 minutes?
……………….
thank you and best regards
[] 's Neto
Neto,
The time you see there is in ms, so the point (‘.’) you see is the digital point.
So, it is 419.113ms or a little less than half a second (0.419sec).
Igor Neyman
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neto pr | 2017-09-08 13:08:08 | Re: Explain Analyze - actual time in loops |
Previous Message | Neto pr | 2017-09-08 03:17:15 | Explain Analyze - actual time in loops |