From: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
To: Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Big difference in time returned by EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT ... AND SELECT ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:56:57 +0800
Message-ID: <4C4D5BE9.6040808@postnewspapers.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C4D547E.50905@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinHPkEDijSHbxY3KxygO2SWy6XMPLvn=CvnWdG8@mail.gmail.com>
<4C4D5220.9010101@postnewspapers.com.au>
<4C4D547E.50905@gmail.com>
On 26/07/10 17:25, Vitalii Tymchyshyn wrote:
> 26.07.10 12:15, Craig Ringer написав(ла):
>> On 26/07/10 16:35, Piotr Gasidło wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've found strange problem in my database (8.4.4, but also 9.0beta3,
>>> default postgresql.conf, shared_buffers raised to 256MB).
>>>
>>> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT ...
>>> Total runtime: 4.782 ms
>>> Time: 25,970 ms
>> Given that, I'm wondering if the difference in this case is planning
>> time. I can't really imagine the query planner taking 20 seconds (!!) to
>> run, though, no matter how horrifyingly complicated the query and table
>> structure were, unless there was something going wrong.
>>
> Actually it's 20ms, so I suspect your point about planning time is correct.
Oh, a commas-as-fraction-separator locale.
That makes sense. Thanks for the catch.
--
Craig Ringer
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: craig@postnewspapers.com.au, tivv00@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Big difference in time returned by EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT ... AND SELECT ...
In-Reply-To: <4C4D5BE9.6040808@postnewspapers.com.au>
* 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