Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jan Otto
Тема Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?
Дата
Msg-id 98747C10-E954-4D50-B881-B33FA2D8A718@me.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?  (AI Rumman <rummandba@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
hi al,

On Jul 25, 2012, at 10:40 AM, AI Rumman <rummandba@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. I missed to add the trigger.
> Now I added it, but still without partition taking less time compared to with partition query.
>
> With partition :-
>
> explain analyze
> select *
> from table1  as c
> inner join table2 as a on c.crmid = a.activityid and deleted = 0
> where module ='Leads'
> ;
>
>                                                                       QUERY PLAN
                                
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Hash Join  (cost=25669.79..86440.88 rows=288058 width=367) (actual time=4411.734..4411.734 rows=0 loops=1)
>    Hash Cond: (a.activityid = c.crmid)
>    ->  Seq Scan on table2 a  (cost=0.00..18337.34 rows=681434 width=139) (actual time=0.264..1336.555 rows=681434
loops=1)
>    ->  Hash  (cost=13207.07..13207.07 rows=288058 width=228) (actual time=1457.495..1457.495 rows=287365 loops=1)
>          Buckets: 1024  Batches: 128  Memory Usage: 226kB
>          ->  Append  (cost=0.00..13207.07 rows=288058 width=228) (actual time=0.014..1000.182 rows=287365 loops=1)
>                ->  Seq Scan on table1 c  (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=1 width=367) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=0 loops=1)
>                      Filter: ((deleted = 0) AND ((module)::text = 'Leads'::text))
>                ->  Seq Scan on table1_leads c  (cost=0.00..13207.07 rows=288057 width=228) (actual
time=0.010..490.169rows=287365 loops=1) 
>                      Filter: ((deleted = 0) AND ((module)::text = 'Leads'::text))
>  Total runtime: 4412.534 ms
> (11 rows)

did you have analyze'd your tables? try if indexing column deleted on table1_leads gives you some more speed.

regards, jan

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: AI Rumman
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?
Следующее
От: Jeff Janes
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?