Thanks
VB
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Venkat Balaji <venkat.balaji@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks a lot Kevin !!Yes. I intended to track full table scans first to ensure that only small tables or tables with very less pages are (as you said) getting scanned full.I am yet to identify slow running queries. Will surely hit back with them in future.ThanksVBOn Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Venkat Balaji <venkat.balaji@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Well, yeah; but be careful not to assume that a sequential scan is
> I am preparing a plan to track the tables undergoing Full Table
> Scans for most number of times.
>
> If i track seq_scan from the pg_stat_user_tables, will that help
> (considering the latest analyzed ones) ?
always a bad thing. Here's our top ten tables for sequential scans
in a database which is performing quite well:
cc=> select seq_scan, n_live_tup, relname
cc-> from pg_stat_user_tables
cc-> order by seq_scan desc
cc-> limit 10;
seq_scan | n_live_tup | relname
----------+------------+--------------------
81264339 | 20 | MaintCode
16840299 | 3 | DbTranImageStatus
14905181 | 18 | ControlFeature
11908114 | 10 | AgingBoundary
8789288 | 22 | CtofcTypeCode
7786110 | 6 | PrefCounty
6303959 | 9 | ProtOrderHistEvent
5835430 | 1 | ControlRecord
5466806 | 1 | ControlAccounting
5202028 | 12 | ProtEventOrderType
(10 rows)
You'll notice that they are all very small tables. In all cases the
entire heap fits in one page, so any form of indexed scan would at
least double the number of pages visited, and slow things down.
If you have queries which are not performing to expectations, your
best bet might be to pick one of them and post it here, following
the advice on this page:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
-Kevin
