-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> -> Index Scan using i_oa_2_00_dt_for on t_oa_2_00_dt dt (cost=0.00..5.31
>>> rows=1 width=8) (actual time=1.264..1.264 rows=0 loops=50)
>>> Index Cond: (dt.card_id = c.id)
>>> Filter: ((
"Greg Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> -> Index Scan using i_oa_2_00_dt_for on t_oa_2_00_dt dt (cost=0.00..5.31
>> rows=1 width=8) (actual time=1.264..1.264 rows=0 loops=50)
>> Index Cond: (dt.card_id = c.id)
>> Filter: ((_to >= 1500) AND (_from <= 1550))
>> Total runtime: 3399960.277 ms
>
> -> Index Scan using i_oa_2_00_dt_for on t_oa_2_00_dt dt
> (cost=0.00..5.31 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=1.264..1.264 rows=0 loops=50)
> Index Cond: (dt.card_id = c.id)
> Filter: ((_to >= 1500) AND (_from <= 1550))
> Total runtime: 3399960.277 ms
Also, are
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> It's evidently guessing wrong about the limit being satisfied early. The
>> non-indexed restrictions might be pruning out a lot more records than the
>> planner expects. Or possibly the table is just full of dead records.
> Here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Gaetano Mendola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I don't get why a limit is going to change the query plan and most of all
>> decreasing
>> the performances.
>
> Until we see the explain analyze it won't be clear what exactl
"Gaetano Mendola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't get why a limit is going to change the query plan and most of all
> decreasing
> the performances.
Until we see the explain analyze it won't be clear what exactly is going on.
But in theory a LIMIT can definitely change the plan because the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:08:56PM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm using 8.2.6 and I'm observing a trange behaviour using
>> offset and limits.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:08:56PM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
> I'm using 8.2.6 and I'm observing a trange behaviour using
> offset and limits.
Please post EXPLAIN ANALYZE output so we can see what's actually taking
the time.
Have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm using 8.2.6 and I'm observing a trange behaviour using
offset and limits.
This are the two queries that are puzzling me:
explain SELECT c.id, tsk, lir, nctr, nctn, ncts, rvel,ecp, pvcp,
pvcc,pvcf,pvcl,ldcn,ogtd,sgti
FROM t_OA_2_0
