| From: | Ole Tange <postgresql(dot)org(at)tange(dot)dk> |
|---|---|
| To: | |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Help interpreting explain analyze output |
| Date: | 2004-08-15 19:08:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0408152044320.22644@tigger.tange.dk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ole Tange <postgresql(dot)org(at)tange(dot)dk> writes:
> > As I read it the output tells me what was done during the milliseconds:
>
> No, you have a fundamental misconception here. The notation means that
> the first output row from a plan step was delivered after X
> milliseconds, and the last row after Y milliseconds.
Thanks. For a novice tuner like me it would be nice if you could see more
easily where the time was spent. However, the output is _far_ more
intuitive that MySQL's.
> It is gonna take a while to sort 175000 rows ... but possibly increasing
> sort_mem would help.
It didn't. However, I could reformulate the DISTINCT query as a GROUP BY
on all the selected fields and this uses Hash aggregate which is far
faster.
Now I am curious: Why isn't DISTINCT implemented using a Hash aggregate?
/Ole
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-15 19:40:37 | Re: Help interpreting explain analyze output |
| Previous Message | Richard Poole | 2004-08-15 18:24:08 | Re: Help interpreting explain analyze output |