From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mike Winter <mike.winter@frontlogic.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:32:19 -0400
Message-ID: <18608.1061411539@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0308201247550.6023-100000@frontlogic.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0308201247550.6023-100000@frontlogic.com>
Mike Winter <mike.winter@frontlogic.com> writes:
> MySQL does queries of this type orders of magnitudes faster than Postgres
> on large value lists, although I have no specific algorithmic solutions to
> offer for how to make it faster.
How large is "large", and what plan type are you getting (seq scan or
multiple index scan)? Is it possible that the cost comes from planner
overhead and not execution? Checking EXPLAIN ANALYZE reported time
against actual elapsed time (cf psql's \timing option) would tell.
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mike.winter@frontlogic.com
Subject: Re: "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b
In-Reply-To: <18608.1061411539@sss.pgh.pa.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