From: | "Shoaib Mir" <shoaibmir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruno Wolff III" <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, "Laurent Manchon" <lmanchon(at)univ-montp2(dot)fr>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: slow result |
Date: | 2007-01-24 10:19:22 |
Message-ID: | bf54be870701240219m6190d68fnde87348f51cf78b8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
You can also try this one:
ANALYZE tablename;
select reltuples from pg_class where relname = 'tablename';
Will also give almost the same results I guess...
-------------
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
On 1/23/07, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:34:52 +0100,
> Laurent Manchon <lmanchon(at)univ-montp2(dot)fr> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a slow response of my PostgreSQL database 7.4 using this query
> below
> > on a table with 800000 rows:
> >
> > select count(*)from tbl;
> >
> > PostgreSQL return result in 28 sec every time.
> > although MS-SQL return result in 0.02 sec every time.
>
> Besides the other advice mentioned in this thread, check that you don't
> have a lot of dead tuples in that table. 28 seconds seems a bit high
> for even a sequential scan of 800000 tuples unless they are pretty large.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-25 03:39:17 | Re: how to plan for vacuum? |
Previous Message | Heiko W.Rupp | 2007-01-24 09:12:43 | Re: Auto Vacuum Problem |