On 2/10/07, Mark Stosberg <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With the help of some of this list, I was able to successfully set up and benchmark a cube-based replacement for geo_distance() calculations. On a development box, the cube-based variations benchmarked consistently running in about 1/3 of the time of the gel_distance() equivalents. After setting up the same columns and indexes on a production database, it's a different story. All the cube operations show themselves to be about the same as, or noticeably slower than, the same operations done with geo_distance(). I've stared at the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output as much I can to figure what's gone. Could you help? Here's the plan on the production server, which seems too slow. Below is the plan I get in on the development server, which is much faster. I tried "set enable_nestloop = off", which did change the plan, but the performance. The production DB has much more data in it, but I still expected comparable results relative to using geo_distance() calculations.
any objection to posting the query (any maybe tables, keys, indexes, etc)? merlin
