From: | Archibald Zimonyi <archie(at)netg(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | postgres sql list <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance problem, what to do? |
Date: | 2001-12-18 15:50:37 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0112181648130.8378-200000@valdez.netg.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> Archibald Zimonyi <archie(at)netg(dot)se> writes:
> > On demand, I'll post the database structure as well as the SQL query which
> > creates the slow respons. I'll add them as attachments (do they come at
> > all?).
>
> You're forcing the join order by using explicit JOIN syntax.
> Rearranging the join order might yield a better plan. See
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/explicit-joins.html
>
I know I am, but if you look at the plan (which I will again add as an
attachment) you see that the plan looks pretty good, in fact way better
then the original plan did.
I don't know how much time each "unit" takes, but a normal select (SELECT
* FROM <table>), which might yield a plan of 0..22.2 "units", takes no
time at all. This plan is at most up at 200, which I don't think is costly
considering what it does.
Archie
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
explain.txt | text/plain | 4.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2001-12-18 16:37:46 | Re: Operation on bit strings with different length |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-18 15:36:54 | Re: Performance problem, what to do? |