From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgresql(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Date: | 2012-12-04 17:25:56 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpbqzBf5545-qxdLQHbLyBBOvxn3hEtjQmqEp+UJPKsSrA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, <postgresql(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>> Slow version with bitmapscan enabled: http://explain.depesz.com/s/6I7
>>> Fast version with bitmapscan disabled: http://explain.depesz.com/s/4MWG
>>
>> If you check the "fast" plan, it has a higher cost compared against
>> the "slow" plan.
>>
>> The difference between cost estimation and actual cost of your
>> queries, under relatively precise row estimates, seems to suggest your
>> e_c_s or r_p_c aren't a reflection of your hardware's performance.
>
> But the row estimates are not precise at the top of the join/filter.
> It thinks there will 2120 rows, but there are only 11.
Ah... I didn't spot that one...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-12-04 17:31:28 | Re: [PATCH] Patch to fix libecpg.so for isinf missing |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-12-04 17:22:29 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Scott | 2012-12-04 17:35:32 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-12-04 17:22:29 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |