I have vacuum analyzed recently. I do it after a large number of inserts
and after indexing. This database is in the development stages so there is
a lot of data loading at this time. We are also using 7.2.3. Here is
the explain analyze:
Group (cost=637.18..696.52 rows=593 width=22) (actual
time=982.67..67581.85 row
s=435 loops=1) -> Sort (cost=637.18..637.18 rows=5934 width=22) (actual
time=833.27..844.78 rows=6571 loops=1) -> Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key,
msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key, msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key, msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key,
msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key on tbl_bls_msa b (cost=0.00..265.30 rows=5934 width=22) (actual
time=0.80..367.64 rows=6571 loops=1) SubPlan -> Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key on tbl_bls_msa
bls (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.46..30.36 rows=1 loops=435) -> Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa
bls (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.54..30.41 rows=1 loops=435) -> Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa
bls (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.53..30.69 rows=1 loops=435) -> Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa
bls (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.19..30.66 rows=1 loops=435) -> Index Scan using msa_code_tbl_bls_msa_key
ontbl_bls_msa
bls (cost=0.00
..53.80 rows=1 width=10) (actual time=16.19..30.80 rows=1 loops=435)
Total runtime: 67589.69 msec
EXPLAIN
Thanks for the help.
At 10:21 AM 11/19/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Ellen Cyran <ellen@urban.csuohio.edu> writes:
> > Is there any way to make this query faster? I have indexes on year,
> > msa_code, and sic. I've also tried it with
> > an index on the combined group by columns. I've made both sort_mem and
> > shared_buffers bigger, but still this query
> > takes 40 seconds when I select 4 msa_codes and 7 minutes when I select 40
> > msa_codes.
>
>Hm, have you vacuum analyzed lately? Those cost estimates seem awfully
>low for a query that is taking 40 sec. Also, if you're using 7.2 (which
>you should be ;-)) then showing EXPLAIN ANALYZE results would be more
>useful than plain EXPLAIN.
>
> regards, tom lane
