From: Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@openwide.fr>
To: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problem analyzing explain analyze output
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:33:03 +0200
Message-ID: <435C801F.1030709@openwide.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051024000824.GA11800@samfundet.no>
References: <435C2297.5050207@openwide.fr>
<20051024000824.GA11800@samfundet.no>
Steinar,
> which seems to make sense; you have one run of about 257ms, plus 514 runs
> taking about 0.035ms each (ie. about 18ms), which should add up to become
> about 275ms (which is close enough to the reality of 281ms).
Yep. The line that disturbed me was the bitmap index scan with a cost of
"actual time=254.143..254.143". I was more looking for something like
"actual time=0..254.143" which is what I usually have for an index scan.
So I suppose that the bitmap index scan returns rows only when it's
totally computed.
Thanks for your help.
Regards.
--
Guillaume
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: guillaume.smet@openwide.fr, sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Problem analyzing explain analyze output
In-Reply-To: <435C801F.1030709@openwide.fr>
* 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