Re: Views + UNION ALL = Slow ? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Hagen Hoepfner
Subject Re: Views + UNION ALL = Slow ?
Date
Msg-id 4176A117.3040805@gmx.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Views + UNION ALL = Slow ?  (o.blomqvist@secomintl.com (Otto Blomqvist))
List pgsql-general
The difficulty is, that your view-based statement do not make use of any
index. So the query must look at each tuple. It seems, that union all
requires a full scan of the participates relations. I dont know if it is
possible but try to create an index on the view ;-)

Hagen

Otto Blomqvist wrote:

>Hello !
>
>I have two tables (which contains individual months' data). One of
>them contains 500 thousand records and the other one about 40k, 8
>columns. When I do a simple query on them individually it takes
>milli-seconds to complete (see gory details below). For some querys I
>want to include data from multiple months so I created a view using
>Union all. But Using the view it takes 31 Seconds to complete the
>"same" query.
>
>I am obviously doing something wrong or using something the wrong way.
>
>Any Ideas ?
>
>/Otto Blomqvist
>
>
>
>test=# explain analyze select fid_2 from file_92_904 where fid_4=1024;
>NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:
>
>Index Scan using file_92_904_ltn_idx on file_92_904
>(cost=0.00..219.90 rows=65 width=4) (actual time=0.49..0.49 rows=0
>loops=1)
>Total runtime: 0.57 msec
>
>EXPLAIN
>
>test=# explain analyze select fid_2 from file_92_1004 where
>fid_4=1024;
>NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:
>
>Index Scan using file_92_1004_ltn_idx on file_92_1004
>(cost=0.00..4505.20 rows=1197 width=4) (actual time=32.36..32.36
>rows=0 loops=1)
>Total runtime: 32.46 msec
>
>EXPLAIN
>
>test=# create view twotables as select * from file_92_1004 UNION ALL
>Select * from file_92_904;
>CREATE
>
>test=# explain analyze select fid_2 from twotables where fid_4=1024;
>NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:
>
>Subquery Scan twotables  (cost=100000000.00..200023000.53 rows=569553
>width=203) (actual time=31590.97..31590.97 rows=0 loops=1)
>  ->  Append  (cost=100000000.00..200023000.53 rows=569553 width=203)
>(actual time=12.13..30683.67 rows=569553 loops=1)
>        ->  Subquery Scan *SELECT* 1  (cost=100000000.00..100021799.06
>rows=540306 width=199) (actual time=12.12..28417.81 rows=540306
>loops=1)
>              ->  Seq Scan on file_92_1004
>(cost=100000000.00..100021799.06 rows=540306 width=199) (actual
>time=12.09..14946.47 rows=540306 loops=1)
>        ->  Subquery Scan *SELECT* 2  (cost=100000000.00..100001201.47
>rows=29247 width=203) (actual time=0.19..1525.18 rows=29247 loops=1)
>              ->  Seq Scan on file_92_904
>(cost=100000000.00..100001201.47 rows=29247 width=203) (actual
>time=0.14..793.34 rows=29247 loops=1)
>Total runtime: 31591.34 msec
>
>EXPLAIN
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>      subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Sequence question
Next
From: "Gary Doades"
Date:
Subject: Re: how much ram do i give postgres?