David Rysdam writes:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:51:22 -0500, Martijn van Oosterhout
> wrote:
>> The Seq Scan took 674ms and was run once (loops=1)
>>
>> The Materialise was run 94951 times and took, on average, 0.011ms to
>> return the first row and 16ms to complete.
>>
>> 16.145 * 94951 = 15329
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:51:22 -0500, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
> The Seq Scan took 674ms and was run once (loops=1)
>
> The Materialise was run 94951 times and took, on average, 0.011ms to
> return the first row and 16ms to complete.
>
> 16.145 * 94951 = 1532983.895
OK, this is helpful. But
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:43:42PM -0500, David Rysdam wrote:
> I'm not really looking for information on how to speed this query
> up. I'm just trying to interpret the output enough to tell me which step
> is slow:
>
>Seq Scan on mags (cost=0.00..187700750.56 rows=47476 width=4) (actual
>
I'm not really looking for information on how to speed this query
up. I'm just trying to interpret the output enough to tell me which step
is slow:
Seq Scan on mags (cost=0.00..187700750.56 rows=47476 width=4) (actual
time=3004851.889..3004851.889 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: ((sign
