pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Don Isgitt <djisgitt@soundenergy.com>
To: Cristian Prieto <cristian@clickdiario.com>
Cc: Sean Davis <sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index use in BETWEEN statement...
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:44:42 -0500
Message-ID: <43384FAA.9030404@soundenergy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050926175615.BA5C21015A@mail.clickdiario.com>
References: <20050926175615.BA5C21015A@mail.clickdiario.com>



Cristian Prieto wrote:

>mydb=# explain analyze select locid from geoip_block where
>'216.230.158.50'::inet between start_block and end_block;
>                                                      QUERY PLAN
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------------
> Seq Scan on geoip_block  (cost=0.00..78033.96 rows=230141 width=8) (actual
>time=13015.538..13508.708 rows=1 loops=1)
>   Filter: (('216.230.158.50'::inet >= start_block) AND
>('216.230.158.50'::inet <= end_block))
> Total runtime: 13508.905 ms
>(3 rows)
>
>mydb=# alter table geoip_block add constraint pkey_geoip_block primary key
>(start_block, end_block);
>NOTICE:  ALTER TABLE / ADD PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index
>"pkey_geoip_block" for table "geoip_block"
>ALTER TABLE
>
>mydb=# vacuum analyze geoip_block; 
>
>mydb=# explain analyze select locid from geoip_block where
>'216.230.158.50'::inet between start_block and end_block;
>                                                      QUERY PLAN
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------------------------
> Seq Scan on geoip_block  (cost=0.00..101121.01 rows=308324 width=8) (actual
>time=12128.190..12631.550 rows=1 loops=1)
>   Filter: (('216.230.158.50'::inet >= start_block) AND
>('216.230.158.50'::inet <= end_block))
> Total runtime: 12631.679 ms
>(3 rows)
>
>mydb=#
>
>
>As you see it still using a sequential scan in the table and ignores the
>index, any other suggestion?
>
>Cristian,
>  
>
Please note that the planner thinks 308324 rows are being returned, 
while there is actually only 1 (one!). You might try altering statistics 
for the relevant column(s), analyzing the table, and then try again. If 
that doesn't give you a more accurate row estimate, though, it won't help.

Don




view thread (8+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <43384FAA.9030404@soundenergy.com>
Permalink:  ../43384FAA.9030404@soundenergy.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/43384FAA.9030404@soundenergy.com

 · 

reply

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: djisgitt@soundenergy.com, cristian@clickdiario.com, sdavis2@mail.nih.gov, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Index use in BETWEEN statement...
  In-Reply-To: <43384FAA.9030404@soundenergy.com>

* 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