Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan
Дата
Msg-id 29507.1178410970@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Sequence vs. Index Scan  ("Aaron Bono" <postgresql@aranya.com>)
Ответы Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan  ("Aaron Bono" <postgresql@aranya.com>)
Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan  ("Aaron Bono" <postgresql@aranya.com>)
Список pgsql-sql
"Aaron Bono" <postgresql@aranya.com> writes:
> 9.                           ->  Seq Scan on branch  (cost=0.00..4.72 rows=1
> width=1281) (actual time=130129.988..157492.057 rows=1 loops=1)
> 10.                                Filter: ((start_day <= now()) AND
> ((end_day IS NULL) OR (end_day >= now())) AND (branch_id =
> get_branch_for_zip('22151'::character varying)))

There is something *awfully* wacko about that entry --- the fact that
the cost estimate is less than 5 units means that the planner thinks
there's 4 or fewer pages; either that's way wrong or the
get_branch_for_zip function is taking enormous amounts of time per row.
Have you tried timing that function on its own?

One possible reason for the performance difference is if you have 
get_branch_for_zip marked as stable in one database and volatile in the
other --- volatile would prevent it from being used in an indexqual as
you'd like.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Aaron Bono"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan
Следующее
От: Andrew Sullivan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Sequence vs. Index Scan