am Thu, dem 05.04.2007, um 1:27:25 -0400 mailte Tom Lane folgendes:
> "A. Kretschmer" <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com> writes:
> > am Wed, dem 04.04.2007, um 23:17:54 -0400 mailte Sumeet folgendes:
> >> sm=> explain analyze select * from ma limit 10;
> >> QUERY
> >> PLAN
> >>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Limit (cost=0.00..0.45 rows=10 width=76) (actual time=21985.292..22204.340
> >> rows=10 loops=1)
> >> -> Seq Scan on ma (cost=0.00..2181956.92 rows=48235392 width=76) (actual
> >> time=21985.285..22204.308 rows=10 loops=1)
> >> Total runtime: 22204.476 ms
> >> (3 rows)
>
> > which version?
>
> I'm betting the problem is poor vacuuming practice leading to lots of
> dead space. There's no way it takes 22 sec to read 10 rows if the
> table is reasonably dense.
This was my first thought, but:
,----[ Quote ]
| I've tried
| vacuuming this table many time
`----
Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
