It sounds like what you're doing is comparing the planner's cost estimate from running EXPLAIN on a few different queries. The planner's cost estimate was never intended to do what you're trying to do; it's not an absolute scale of cost, it's just a tool that the planner uses to get relative comparisons of logically equivalent plans. The actual number that the planner spits out is meaningless in an absolute sense. It's entirely possible that one query with an estimated cost of 10000 will run faster than a query with an estimated cost of 100. What you actually need to do is compare the real running time of the queries in order to see which ones are actually problematic. For that, you'd do better using a tool like pgFouine to look at actual performance trends. -- Mark On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:55 -0300, Rafael Domiciano wrote: > Hello People, > > I have initiated a work to review the sqls of our internal software. > Lot of them he problem are about sql logic, or join with table > unecessary, and so on. > But software has lot of sql with date, doing thinks like: > [..] > date >= '2009-04-01' AND > date <= '2009-04-15' > [..] > > Redoing the SQL with fix date (date = '2009-04-01') o cost in explain > always still about 200 or less. But with a period the cost is high, > about 6000 or more. > > Select is using Index and the date is using index too. > > There is some way to use date period with less cost? > > Rafael Domiciano -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
