Re: using an index worst performances - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: using an index worst performances
Date
Msg-id 4125565D.3060008@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: using an index worst performances  (Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>)
Responses Re: using an index worst performances  (Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>)
List pgsql-performance
>>> Without index: 1.140 ms
>>> With index: 1.400 ms
>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200:   1.800 ms
>>
>>
>>
>> Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the
>> thousands separator)?
>>
>> If it means 1.8ms then frankly the times are too short to mean
>> anything without running them 100 times and averaging.
>
>
>
> It mean 1.8 ms and that execution time is sticky to that value even
> with 1000 times.

Given the almost irrelvant difference in the speed of those queries, I'd
say that with the stats so high, postgres simply takes longer to check
the statistics to come to the same conclusion.  ie. it has to loop over
200 rows instead of just 10.

Chris


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: Re: using an index worst performances
Next
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: Re: using an index worst performances