Re: Performance aggregates - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ryan Mahoney
Subject Re: Performance aggregates
Date
Msg-id 5.0.2.1.0.20010515150655.046f1060@paymentalliance.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance aggregates  (snpe <snpe@infosky.net>)
List pgsql-general
If your query is not using the correct index files, you're query will run
slowly.  Please post the output from EXPLAIN.

-r

At 09:00 PM 5/15/01 +0200, snpe wrote:

>On Tuesday 15 May 2001 17:28, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2001, snpe wrote:
> > > Table e_kalkn have 4668 rows and e_kalkns 101170 rows.
> > >
> > > Query :
> > >
> > > select roba,sum(izn)
> > >  from e_kalkn k,e_kalkns ks
> > >  where k.id=ks.id
> > >  group by roba
> > >  order by roba
> > >
> > > is 2.5 times faster on one commercial database (there are tests on
> > > Internet that say 'Postgresql is faster than that database).
> > > I can't say which database it is.
> >
> > Have you run vacuum analyze (since loading the data) and what does explain
> > show for the query.  Also, what version are you using?
> >
>version postgresql 7.1.1
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.251 / Virus Database: 124 - Release Date: 4/26/01

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.251 / Virus Database: 124 - Release Date: 4/26/01

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the best front end/client under MS Windows?
Next
From: Alex Pilosov
Date:
Subject: index doesn't work for null?