On Jan 9, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
> Planning time: 4.554 ms
> Execution time: 225998.839 ms
> (20 rows)
>
> So a little less than four minutes. Not bad (given the size of the database),
> or so I thought.
>
> This morning (so a couple of days later) I ran the query again without the
> explain analyze to check the results, and noticed that it didn't take
> anywhere near four minutes to execute. So I ran the explain analyze again,
> and got this:
...
> Planning time: 0.941 ms
> Execution time: 9636.285 ms
> (20 rows)
>
> So from four minutes on the first run to around 9 1/2 seconds on the second.
> Presumably this difference is due to caching? I would have expected any
> caches to have expired by the time I made the second run, but the data *is*
> static, so I guess not. Otherwise, I don't know how to explain the
> improvement on the second run - the query plans appear identical (at least to
> me). *IS* there something else (for example, auto vacuum running over the
> weekend) that could explain the performance difference?
This may sound crazy, but I suggest running each of these scenarios 3+ times:
# cold explain
stop postgres
start postgres
explain analyze SELECT
# cold select
stop postgres
start postgres
enable \t for query timing
SELECT
# cold explain to select
stop postgres
start postgres
explain analyze SELECT
enable \t for query timing
SELECT
# cold select to explain
stop postgres
start postgres
enable \t for query timing
SELECT
explain analyze SELECT
# cold select to select
stop postgres
start postgres
enable \t for query timing
SELECT
SELECT
I've found the timing for "Explain Analyze" to be incredibly different from an
actual SELECT on complex/large dataset queries... and the differences don't
seem to correlate to possible speedups from index/table caching.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
