Re: [PERFORM] SORT performance - slow?

2011-05-19 Thread Kevin Grittner
"Strange, John W" wrote: > Am I reading this right in that the sort is taking almost 8 > seconds? > -> Sort ... actual time=14186.977..14287.068 > -> Hash Join ... actual time=6000.728..12037.492 The run time of the sort is the difference between 12037 ms and 14287 ms (the completion tim

Re: [PERFORM] reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan

2011-05-19 Thread Cédric Villemain
2011/5/19 Jim Nasby : > On May 19, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >>> Jim Nasby wrote: I think the challenge there would be how to define the scope of the hot-spot. Is it the last X pages? Last X serial values? Something like >

Re: [PERFORM] SORT performance - slow?

2011-05-19 Thread Samuel Gendler
Plus the entire explain analyze output into the form at http://explain.depesz.com/ and you'll get a nicely human readable output which shows both the inclusive and exclusive time spent on each step of the query. It also highlights any steps which show inaccurate statistics. It will also give you

[PERFORM] SORT performance - slow?

2011-05-19 Thread Strange, John W
Am I reading this right in that the sort is taking almost 8 seconds? "GroupAggregate (cost=95808.09..95808.14 rows=1 width=142) (actual time=14186.999..14694.524 rows=315635 loops=1)" " Output: sq.tag, sq.instrument, s.d1, s.d2, s.d3, s.d4, s.d5, s.d6, s.d7, s.d8, s.d9, s.d10, sum(sq.v)" " Bu

Re: [PERFORM] Link error when use Pgtypes function in windows

2011-05-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Maciek Sakrejda wrote: >> Does someone can help me? > > You may want to try pgsql-general instead of this list. Yeah, this isn't a performance question. But I wonder if the problem might be that the OP needs to link with the ecpg library, not just libpq. -- Ro

Re: [PERFORM] reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan

2011-05-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On May 19, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >>> Jim Nasby wrote: I think the challenge there would be how to define the scope of the hot-spot. Is it the last X pages? Last X se

Re: [PERFORM] reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan

2011-05-19 Thread Jim Nasby
On May 19, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >> Jim Nasby wrote: >>> I think the challenge there would be how to define the scope of the >>> hot-spot. Is it the last X pages? Last X serial values? Something like >>> correlation? >>> >>> Hmm

Re: [PERFORM] reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan

2011-05-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Jim Nasby wrote: >> I think the challenge there would be how to define the scope of the >> hot-spot. Is it the last X pages? Last X serial values? Something like >> correlation? >> >> Hmm... it would be interesting if we had average relation ac