On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:43:42PM -0500, David Rysdam wrote: > I'm not really looking for information on how to speed this query > up. I'm just trying to interpret the output enough to tell me which step > is slow: > > Seq Scan on mags (cost=0.00..187700750.56 rows=47476 width=4) (actual > time=3004851.889..3004851.889 rows=0 loops=1) > Filter: ((signum IS NOT NULL) AND (NOT (SubPlan 1))) > SubPlan 1 > -> Materialize (cost=0.00..3713.93 rows=95862 width=4) > (actual time=0.011..16.145 rows=48139 loops=94951) > -> Seq Scan on sigs (cost=0.00..2906.62 rows=95862 > width=4) (actual time=0.010..674.201 rows=95862 loops=1) > Total runtime: 3004852.005 ms > > It looks like the inner seq scan takes 674ms, then the materialize takes > an additional 16ms? Or is that 16ms * 94951? Or 674 * 94951?
The Seq Scan took 674ms and was run once (loops=1) The Materialise was run 94951 times and took, on average, 0.011ms to return the first row and 16ms to complete. 16.145 * 94951 = 1532983.895 > And the outer seq scan takes 3004851-3004851 = 0ms? The outer plan took 3004851ms to return its first row, and last row also as apparently it matched now rows at all. And if this is the complete plan, it took 1,500 seconds for itself. Hope this helps, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does > not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
