On 23 avr, 14:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory Stark) wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is the result of an EXPLAIN:
> >...
> > I suppose that the problem comes from the Bitmap Heap Scan which costs
> > a lot, but I can't be totally sure.
>
> > Any idea on where I should be investigating ?
>
> Try posting an EXPLAIN ANALYZE which will actually run the query and include
> information to compare against the estimates.
>
> --
> Gregory Stark
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> To make changes to your
> subscription:http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Thanks for your answer. Here is the EXPLAIN ANALYZE of this query:
Limit (cost=392.43..392.43 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=689.016..689.017 rows=1 loops=1)"
-> Sort (cost=392.22..392.43 rows=83 width=4) (actual
time=688.552..688.811 rows=1000 loops=1)"
Sort Key: flg_rid"
-> Index Scan using prj_frm_flg_pkey on prj_frm_flg
(cost=0.00..389.58 rows=83 width=4) (actual time=0.186..687.578
rows=1000 loops=1)"
Index Cond: (flg_mid = 3)"
Filter: ((NOT flg_fav) AND (NOT flg_notif) AND (NOT
flg_post))"
Total runtime: 689.092 ms"
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
