Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching

From: Hyun-Sung, Jang
Subject: Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching
Date: ,
Msg-id: 41AD4AD0.908@siche.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching with PK.  (Tom Lane)
Responses: Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching  (Josh Berkus)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching with PK.  (장현성, )
 Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching with PK.  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching  ("Hyun-Sung, Jang", )
   Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching  (Josh Berkus, )
    Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching  ("Hyun-Sung, Jang", )
     Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching  (Andrew McMillan, )
     Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching  (Josh Berkus, )

before test, I already executed VACUUM FULL.
this result show up after vacuum full.


Tom Lane 쓴 글:
장현성 <> writes: 
but, sequence scan, as you see above result, there is big time 
difference between using LIMIT and without using it.   
You've got a table full of dead rows.  Try VACUUM FULL ...
		regards, tom lane
 


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Andrew McMillan
Date:
Subject: Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching
From: Rodrigo Carvalhaes
Date:
Subject: pg_restore taking 4 hours!