From: Gavin Hamill <gdh@laterooms.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Slow query - possible bug?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:05:33 +0100
Message-ID: <443E4C9D.3090301@laterooms.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3c1395330604130546g6b091f75x511955817fe65dcd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <443E3DF5.4020207@laterooms.com>
<3c1395330604130546g6b091f75x511955817fe65dcd@mail.gmail.com>
chris smith wrote:
>1.6secs isn't too bad on 4.3mill rows...
>
>How many entries are there for that date range?
>
>
1.7 secs /is/ good - it typically takes 5 or 6 seconds, which isn't so
good. My question is 'why does the planner choose such a bizarre range
request when both elements of the 'between' are identical? :)'
If I replace the
(allocation0_."Date" between '2006-06-09 00:00:00.000000' and
'2006-06-09 00:00:00.000000')
with
allocation0_."Date" ='2006-04-09 00:00:00.000000'
then the query comes back in a few milliseconds (as I'd expect :) - and
yup I've been using different dates for each test to avoid the query
being cached.
For ref, there are typically 35000 rows per date :)
Cheers,
Gavin.
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: gdh@laterooms.com
Subject: Re: Slow query - possible bug?
In-Reply-To: <443E4C9D.3090301@laterooms.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