FAQ

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, David Olbersen wrote:

There are two things you should do first:

1) VACUUM ANALYZE hits;
2) VACUUM ANALYZE referrer;
I did that before, too.
If it's still running slowly, try EXPLAINing your SELECT to us.
Ok, VACUUMing the tables didn't increase performance. This is the EXPLAIN
output:

httplog=# EXPLAIN SELECT count(*), url FROM hits, referrer WHERE
referrer.id = referrer_id GROUP BY url ORDER BY count DESC LIMIT 10;
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:

Sort (cost=912.81..912.81 rows=678 width=20)
-> Aggregate (cost=846.98..880.90 rows=678 width=20)
-> Group (cost=846.98..863.94 rows=6785 width=20)
-> Sort (cost=846.98..846.98 rows=6785 width=20)
-> Hash Join (cost=10.46..415.17 rows=6785 width=20)
-> Seq Scan on hits (cost=0.00..128.85
rows=6785 width=4)
-> Hash (cost=9.57..9.57 rows=357 width=16)
-> Seq Scan on referrer (cost=0.00..9.57
rows=357 width=16)

EXPLAIN

I hope someone can explain this to me :)

Thanks for your quick answer,

regards,
le

--
Lukas Ertl eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
WWW-Redaktion Tel.: (+43 1) 4277-14073
Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID) Fax.: (+43 1) 4277-9140
der Universität Wien

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 3 of 8 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-novice @
categoriespostgresql
postedMar 28, '01 at 8:23p
activeMar 30, '01 at 9:22a
posts8
users4
websitepostgresql.org
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase