Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-22 Thread Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rod Taylor wrote: |>>What are the times without the index, with the index and with the higher |>>statistics value when using a prepared query? |> |>Using a prepared query: |> |>Without index and default stat 10 :1.12 ms |>Without index and default s

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: > | Could we see EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE output for each case? > [snip] > See above. Okay, so the issue here is choosing between a nestloop or a hash join that have very nearly equal estimated costs: > ~ -> Hash Join (

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-20 Thread Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Lane wrote: | Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | |>Using a prepared query: | | |>Without index and default stat 10 :1.12 ms ariadne=# explain analyze execute test_ariadne; ~

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Using a prepared query: > Without index and default stat 10 :1.12 ms > Without index and default stat 1000 : 1.25 ms > With index and default stat 10:1.35 ms > With index and default stat 1000: 1.6 ms Could we see EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXE

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-20 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Rod Taylor wrote: On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 05:37, Gaetano Mendola wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: |>>> Without index: 1.140 ms |>>> With index: 1.400 ms |>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> Can I just check that 1.

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-20 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 05:37, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > |>>> Without index: 1.140 ms > |>>> With index: 1.400 ms > |>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> Can I just che

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-20 Thread Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: |>>> Without index: 1.140 ms |>>> With index: 1.400 ms |>>> With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the |>> thousands separator)?

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-19 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Without index: 1.140 ms With index: 1.400 ms With default_statistic_targer = 200: 1.800 ms Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the thousands separator)? If it means 1.8ms then frankly the times are too short to mean anything without running them 100 times and avera

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-19 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Richard Huxton wrote: Gaetano Mendola wrote: Hi all, I'm tring to optimize the following query: http://rafb.net/paste/results/YdO9vM69.html as you can see from the explain after defining the index the performance is worst. If I raise the default_statistic_target to 200 then the performance are wors

Re: [PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-19 Thread Richard Huxton
Gaetano Mendola wrote: Hi all, I'm tring to optimize the following query: http://rafb.net/paste/results/YdO9vM69.html as you can see from the explain after defining the index the performance is worst. If I raise the default_statistic_target to 200 then the performance are worst then before: Without

[PERFORM] using an index worst performances

2004-08-19 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Hi all, I'm tring to optimize the following query: http://rafb.net/paste/results/YdO9vM69.html as you can see from the explain after defining the index the performance is worst. If I raise the default_statistic_target to 200 then the performance are worst then before: Without index: 1.140 ms With i