On 21/07/2012 00:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Claudio Freire writes:
Looking at this:
"-> Index Scan using
idx_message_copies_wk2_date_src_pos_partial on message_copies_wk2
message_copies (cost=0.00..19057.93 rows=52 width=32) (actual
time=62.124..5486270.845 rows=387524 loops=1)"
Claudio Freire writes:
> Looking at this:
> "-> Index Scan using
> idx_message_copies_wk2_date_src_pos_partial on message_copies_wk2
> message_copies (cost=0.00..19057.93 rows=52 width=32) (actual
> time=62.124..5486270.845 rows=387524 loops=1)"
> "
On 20/07/2012 22:53, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos wrote:
On 20/07/2012 22:33, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
On 20/07/2012 22:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
Misestimated row counts... did you try running an analyze, or upping
statistic targets?
I h
On 20/07/2012 22:33, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
On 20/07/2012 22:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
Misestimated row counts... did you try running an analyze, or upping
statistic targets?
I have run analyse every so often. I think the problem
On 20/07/2012 22:33, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
On 20/07/2012 22:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
"-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20942.93 rows=53 width=144) (actual
time
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
> On 20/07/2012 22:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20942.93 rows=53 width=144) (actual
>>> time=62.174..17783236.718 row
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
> On 20/07/2012 22:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> Misestimated row counts... did you try running an analyze, or upping
>> statistic targets?
> I have run analyse every so often. I think the problem is that as I get 16K
> new rows every
On 20/07/2012 22:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
"-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20942.93 rows=53 width=144) (actual
time=62.174..17783236.718 rows=387105 loops=1)"
" Join Filter: (feed_all_y2012m07.message_copies.msg_
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
wrote:
> "-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..20942.93 rows=53 width=144) (actual
> time=62.174..17783236.718 rows=387105 loops=1)"
> " Join Filter: (feed_all_y2012m07.message_copies.msg_id =
> feed_all_y2012m07.ship_pos_messag
Hello,
the following query seems to take ages to get executed. However I am
more than sure (as you can see from the explain analyse) that uses all
the correct indexes. In general I have serious issues with joins in my
database. This is a Postgres ver. 9.0 running postgis with the
"_int.sql" co
Are you running a lot of full table updates?
If you mean updates which are applied on every or almost every row of
the table - yes, it happens with two rather small tables of max. 10
000 rows. But they are both not touched by the query with this big
performance difference.
I'm not an expert, but
11 matches
Mail list logo