From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Schroeder <mirage(at)mirageworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Select query takes long to execute |
Date: | 2003-05-29 16:01:16 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305291000160.29552-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
See if lowering random_page_cost to 1.5 or so helps here.
That and effective_cache_size are two of the more important values the
planner uses to decide between seq scans and index scans.
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Kevin Schroeder wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm running a simple query on a table and I'm getting a very long
> response time. The table has 56,000 rows in it. It has a full text field,
> but it is not being referenced in this query. The query I'm running is
>
> select row_key, column1, column2, column3, column4, column5 from table1
> where column6 = 1 order by column3 desc limit 21;
>
> There is an index on the table
>
> message_index btree (column6, column3, column7)
>
> Column 3 is a date type, column 6 is an integer and column 7 is unused in
> this query.
>
> The total query time is 6 seconds, but I can bring that down to 4.5 if I
> append "offset 0" to the end of the query. By checking query using "explain
> analyze" it shows that it is using the index.
>
> If anyone has any ideas as to why the query is taking so long and what I can
> do to make it more efficient I would love to know.
>
> Thanks
> Kevin
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Szepe | 2003-05-29 16:32:39 | db growing out of proportion |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-29 14:49:43 | Re: Query problem fixed |