From: | Toni Helenius <Toni(dot)Helenius(at)syncrontech(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index only select count(*) |
Date: | 2013-10-07 09:34:08 |
Message-ID: | E6A9CAA76548CB4EB02D2E3B174DD3B1EF9E189428@ink.sad.syncrontech.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
yes, I'm cheating by using GUI :) (PgAdmin)
Here:
"Aggregate (cost=18240.50..18240.51 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=2911.117..2911.119 rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> Seq Scan on min1_009 (cost=0.00..18108.60 rows=52760 width=0) (actual time=5.390..2816.274 rows=52760 loops=1)"
"Total runtime: 2912.211 ms"
-----Original Message-----
From: Alban Hertroys [mailto:haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: 7. lokakuuta 2013 12:31
To: Toni Helenius
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Index only select count(*)
On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:23, Toni Helenius <Toni(dot)Helenius(at)syncrontech(dot)com> wrote:
> The output of analyze:
> "Aggregate (cost=18240.50..18240.51 rows=1 width=0)"
> " -> Seq Scan on min1_009 (cost=0.00..18108.60 rows=52760 width=0)"
That's the output of Explain, not of Explain Analyze. The latter has actual measurements to go with the estimated costs, which gives a lot more insight.
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2013-10-07 09:54:01 | Re: Index only select count(*) |
Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2013-10-07 09:31:21 | Re: Index only select count(*) |