From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Neto pr <netopr9@gmail.com>
cc: Igor Neyman <ineyman@perceptron.com>,
        "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Explain Analyze - actual time in loops
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+wPC0ObeUigZk3Vf_EVtozKUoCcd91FDFUd4VR4L_3LkY6bbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+wPC0OXdN+_8HxhYMWyV9nfD8v+xChvLROiWCiRo=qSve2MjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR17MB14993F6FD18158C593907D85DA950@DM5PR17MB1499.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+wPC0ObeUigZk3Vf_EVtozKUoCcd91FDFUd4VR4L_3LkY6bbA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Neto pr <netopr9@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:08:08 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15788.1504878289.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:44:49 -0400
Message-ID: <15789.1504878289@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Neto pr <netopr9@gmail.com> writes:
> After analyzing, I saw that in some places of the plan, it is being used
> Parallelism. Does this explain why the final value spent (in minutes) to go
> through the index (184 minutes) is greater than the total query time (66
> minutes)?

I was just about to ask you about that.  If this is under a Gather node,
I believe that the numbers include time expended in all processes.
So if you had three or more workers these results would make sense.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance