Re: Performace question - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Lada 'Ray' Lostak |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Performace question |
Date | |
Msg-id | 010401c39e3b$a4fb0840$0d01a8c0@utopia Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Performace question ("Lada 'Ray' Lostak" <ray@unreal64.net>) |
Responses |
Re: Performace question
Re: Performace question |
List | pgsql-general |
>Firstly, have you run ANALYZE across the database? ANALYZE not, only EXPLAIN. And it looks pretty normal :( There is basically nothing interested in soo simple SQL. >Secondly, the queries that are varying so much, can you post the EXPLAIN >ANALYZE output so we can see what is actually going on. Thx, ANALYZE was good idea. Here it comes - right now, there is index on 'cluster' (BTREE) @ dtditems. But it was not used - I guess because reading & seraching will cost more than pure seq scan on 'few' items... EXPLAIN SELECT id,parent,alias,aliasfull,name,comment,type,typeflags,flags,cluster,viewprio r FROM dtditems WHERE cluster IN (42) QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on dtditems (cost=0.00..253.40 rows=150 width=84) Filter: ("cluster" = 42) QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on dtditems (cost=0.00..253.40 rows=150 width=84) (actual time=440.10..472.00 rows=113 loops=1) Filter: ("cluster" = 42) Total runtime: 519.86 msec Current 'top' output (while running test) load averages: 1.31, 1.11, 0.78 50 processes: 1 running, 47 idle, 2 stopped CPU states: 1.4% user, 0.0% nice, 2.2% system, 0.2% interrupt, 96.3% idle There also more than 200M free memory. Just to compare - the same SQL executed by Ms Access database (uch, it hurt to type that name !) takes ~12 ms. Also MySql takes similar time... There is no differences between variations on WHERE - like using = instead of IN etc. >Note also that the query log can be very helpful in finding out if the delay >is in the database or not. I added to email log from PgSql (hope it arrives well last time, coz I am sitting @ outlook@nt4 :) and there you can see, that it really takes 500 ms to select 100 records from ~500 rows table... Let me know, if log was damaged. But the time coresponds.... What can I do (or where is some document regarding this topic ?) speed up PgSql ? I really think, half second for selecting ~100 rows from ~600 rows table it pretty slow. Commodore 64 (1 mHz 6510) will do it faster :) Any hints ? Thanks, Best regards, Lada 'Ray' Lostak Unreal64 Develop group http://www.orcave.com http://www.unreal64.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the 1960s you needed the power of two C64s to get a rocket to the moon. Now you need a machine which is a vast number of times more powerful just to run the most popular GUI.
pgsql-general by date: