X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9499DC877
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:31:34 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 57371-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:31:34 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from megazone.bigpanda.com (megazone.bigpanda.com [64.147.171.210])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0479DC838
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:31:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 0BB4E3661C; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0992E3660C; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:28:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
To: ryan groth <postgres@cpusoftware.com>
Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres?
In-Reply-To: <E1FBySH-0005Rw-1H@zeus.liquidweb.com>
Message-ID: <20060222102713.Y73083@megazone.bigpanda.com>
References: <E1FBySH-0005Rw-1H@zeus.liquidweb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.141 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141]
X-Spam-Score: 0.141
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200602/352
X-Sequence-Number: 17338

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, ryan groth wrote:

> Does this work:
>
> "Merge Left Join  (cost=0.00..2656.36 rows=6528 width=1522) (actual
> time=0.057..123.659 rows=6528 loops=1)"
> "  Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".uid)"
> "  ->  Merge Left Join  (cost=0.00..1693.09 rows=6528 width=1264)
> (actual time=0.030..58.876 rows=6528 loops=1)"
> "        Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".user_id)"
> "        ->  Index Scan using users_pkey on users  (cost=0.00..763.81
> rows=6528 width=100) (actual time=0.016..9.446 rows=6528 loops=1)"
> "        ->  Index Scan using phorum_users_base_pkey on
> phorum_users_base  (cost=0.00..822.92 rows=9902 width=1168) (actual
> time=0.007..15.674 rows=9845 loops=1)"
> "  ->  Index Scan using useraux_pkey on useraux  (cost=0.00..846.40
> rows=7582 width=262) (actual time=0.007..11.935 rows=7529 loops=1)"
> "Total runtime: 127.442 ms"

Well, this implies the query took about 127 ms on the server side. Where
did the 1000 ms number come from (was that on a client, and if so, what
type)?