Re: poor performance involving a small table - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From andrew@pillette.com
Subject Re: poor performance involving a small table
Date
Msg-id 200505310231.j4V2V6e25466@pillette.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to poor performance involving a small table  (Colton A Smith <smith@cs.utk.edu>)
List pgsql-performance
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--bound1117506666
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Colton A Smith <smith@cs.utk.edu> wrote ..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Seq Scan on sensor  (cost=0.00..1.25 rows=1 width=6) (actual
> time=0.055..0.068 rows=1 loops=1)
>     Filter: (sensor_id = 12)
>   Total runtime: 801641.333 ms
> (3 rows)


Do you have some foreign keys pointing in the other direction? In other words, is there another table such that a
deleteon sensors causing a delete (or a check of some key) in another table? EXPLAIN doesn't show these. And that might
bea big table missing an index. 

--bound1117506666--

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tobias Brox
Date:
Subject: Re: timestamp indexing
Next
From: Tobias Brox
Date:
Subject: Index on a NULL-value