From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Index scan startup time
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:42:53 -0500
Message-ID: <20060330124251.GK6811@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060330123134.GA13408@uio.no>
References: <200603301359.11038.peter_e@gmx.net>
<20060330120206.GA13075@uio.no>
<200603301423.54510.peter_e@gmx.net>
<20060330123134.GA13408@uio.no>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 02:31:34PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>Well, it's logical enough; it scans along activity_id until it finds one with
>state=10000 or state=10001. You obviously have a _lot_ of records with low
>activity_id and state none of these two, so Postgres needs to scan all those
>records before it founds 100 it can output. This is the “startup cost” you're
>seeing.
Yes. And the estimates are bad enough (orders of magnitude) that I can't
help but wonder whether pg could come up with a better plan with better
statistics:
>>>> -> Index Scan using activity_pk on activity (cost=0.00..40717259.91 rows=6538650 width=8) (actual time=207356.050..207356.722 rows=100 loops=1) Filter: ((state = 10000) OR (state = 10001))
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: Index scan startup time
In-Reply-To: <20060330124251.GK6811@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox