2008/9/2 Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule 'at' gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> 2008/9/1 David West <david.west@cusppoint.com>:
>>> Thanks for your suggestion but the result is the same.
>>>
>>> Here is the explain analyse output from different queries.
>>> Select * from my_table where A is null and B = '21' limit 15
>>>
>>> "Limit (cost=0.00..3.68 rows=15 width=128) (actual time=85837.043..85896.140 rows=15 loops=1)"
>>> " -> Seq Scan on my_table this_ (cost=0.00..258789.88 rows=1055580 width=128) (actual time=85837.038..85896.091
rows=15loops=1)"
>>> " Filter: ((A IS NULL) AND ((B)::text = '21'::text))"
>>> "Total runtime: 85896.214 ms"
>>>
>>
>> I see it - problem is in statistics - system expect 1055580, but there
>> is only 15 values.
>
> Aren't you rather seeing the effect of the limit clause?
yes, true, my mistake
Pavel
>
> gc=# create table foo ( bar int );
> CREATE TABLE
> gc=# insert into foo ( select generate_series(0, 10000000) / 1000000 );
> INSERT 0 10000001
> gc=# analyze foo;
> ANALYZE
> gc=# explain analyze select * from foo where bar = 8 limit 15;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Limit (cost=0.00..2.30 rows=15 width=4) (actual time=2379.878..2379.921 rows=15 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..164217.00 rows=1070009 width=4) (actual time=2379.873..2379.888 rows=15 loops=1)
> Filter: (bar = 8)
> Total runtime: 2379.974 ms
>
> (on 8.3.1)
>
> --
> Guillaume Cottenceau, MNC Mobile News Channel SA, an Alcatel-Lucent Company
> Av. de la Gare 10, 1003 Lausanne, Switzerland - direct +41 21 317 50 36
>
