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

From Gaetano Mendola
Subject Re: using an index worst performances
Date
Msg-id 4125C657.7000702@bigfoot.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: using an index worst performances  (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
Responses Re: using an index worst performances
List pgsql-performance
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

|>>> 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.

The time increase seems too much.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBJcZW7UpzwH2SGd4RAuiMAJ971EAtr1RrHu2QMi0YYk0kKeuQmACg9bd3
CFcmq5MRG/Eq3RXdNOdu43Y=
=Bvo8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: using an index worst performances
Next
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: using an index worst performances