From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: Chris Faulkner <chrisf@oramap.com>
Cc: Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:26:29 +0800
Message-ID: <3F87E8E5.1000203@familyhealth.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DGENKIKMJILAAKJGFHKFKEKGCIAA.chrisf@oramap.com>
References: <DGENKIKMJILAAKJGFHKFKEKGCIAA.chrisf@oramap.com>
> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..147.11 rows=1 width=148) (actual
> time=84.00..12323.00 rows=67 loops=1)
The planner estimate doesn't seem to match reality in that particular
step. Are you sure you've run:
ANALYZE oscar_node;
ANALYZE oscar_point;
And you could even run VACUUM FULL on them just to make sure.
Does that make any difference?
Chris
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: chriskl@familyhealth.com.au, chrisf@oramap.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache
In-Reply-To: <3F87E8E5.1000203@familyhealth.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