From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
To: Wei Weng <wweng@kencast.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Can you help with this JOIN?
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20020529100354.M33333-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1022689283.26718.9.camel@Monet>
On 29 May 2002, Wei Weng wrote:
> One question is: It appears to be using Sequential scan on tables no
> matter how big it is. I tried to set enable_seqscan='false' and then
> vacuum analyze, but the result is even worse.
>
> Isn't index scan supposed to be faster/better than sequential scan for
> large tables? One table (contentsummaries) has 11000 entries and another
Not necessarily. If the values in the table are in random pages (ie, no
real coordination between index key value and position in table) after a
point you end up reading most of the pages of the table anyway, plus
you're reading the index (and the smaller the individual row, the more
likely this is to occur as well I'd guess)
You might want to consider trying other join orders since you're using
explicit join syntax since postgres will take the order you're doing your
joins as the order you want the joins to be done in. And are you sure
you need the distinct, that's probably resulting in the sort and unique
step.
For other things, what are your postgresql.conf settings for shared memory
and sort memory?
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: sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com, wweng@kencast.com
Subject: Re: Can you help with this JOIN?
In-Reply-To: <20020529100354.M33333-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.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