Dear users, we are facing with a strange efficiency problem. We have two tables: 1) the first largest (30000 rows) contains a timestamp field (named "tempo_calcolo") and other fields. 2) the second contains only few rows (150), a PostGIS geometric POLYGON field (named "the_geom") and other fields. The query we want to execute is a join between the two table based on a common field, filtered by the timestamp field and ordered by the same field. Including and excluding the PostGIS geometric POLYGON field (that is not used neither in the joining or in the filtering) the execution times are really different. Without the geometric field it takes around 86 ms !! With the geometric field it takes around 14000 ms !! These are the EXPLAIN ANALYSE results obtained when we perform the query without the geometric field: ____________________________ "Sort (cost=1217.29..1240.40 rows=9246 width=133) (actual time=2.964..3.095 rows=1474 loops=1)" " Sort Key: storico_zone_allertamento.tempo_calcolo" " Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 440kB" " InitPlan 1 (returns $0)" " -> Result (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.022..0.022 rows=1 loops=1)" " -> Hash Join (cost=6.01..608.21 rows=9246 width=133) (actual time=0.143..1.916 rows=1474 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (storico_zone_allertamento.gid_fk = zone_allertamento.gid)" " -> Index Scan using index_storico_zone_allertamento_tempo_calcolo on storico_zone_allertamento (cost=0.00..475.06 rows=9246 width=112) (actual time=0.042..0.440 rows=1474 loops=1)" " Index Cond: (tempo_calcolo > $0)" " -> Hash (cost=4.34..4.34 rows=134 width=25) (actual time=0.090..0.090 rows=134 loops=1)" " Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 8kB" " -> Seq Scan on zone_allertamento (cost=0.00..4.34 rows=134 width=25) (actual time=0.004..0.035 rows=134 loops=1)" "Total runtime: 3.285 ms" __________________________ These are the EXPLAIN ANALYSE results obtained when we perform the query with the geometric field: ___________________________ "Sort (cost=776019.29..776042.40 rows=9246 width=196111) (actual time=3.039..3.163 rows=1474 loops=1)" " Sort Key: storico_zone_allertamento.tempo_calcolo" " Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 567kB" " InitPlan 1 (returns $0)" " -> Result (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.009..0.009 rows=1 loops=1)" " -> Hash Join (cost=6.01..608.21 rows=9246 width=196111) (actual time=0.139..1.957 rows=1474 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (storico_zone_allertamento.gid_fk = zone_allertamento.gid)" " -> Index Scan using index_storico_zone_allertamento_tempo_calcolo on storico_zone_allertamento (cost=0.00..475.06 rows=9246 width=112) (actual time=0.029..0.431 rows=1474 loops=1)" " Index Cond: (tempo_calcolo > $0)" " -> Hash (cost=4.34..4.34 rows=134 width=196003) (actual time=0.091..0.091 rows=134 loops=1)" " Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 19kB" " -> Seq Scan on zone_allertamento (cost=0.00..4.34 rows=134 width=196003) (actual time=0.006..0.038 rows=134 loops=1)" "Total runtime: 3.355 ms" __________________________ It seems that the difference is primary in the "width" and then in the "cost" of the Sort. A similar task performed on two similar tables (both larger than the previous ones!!) but including and excluding a PostGIS geometric POINT (!!) field instead of POLYGON one, doesn't result in significant query execution time difference. Do you have please any suggestion to improve our query efficiency?? Thanks in advance Ivan and Mauro -- Ti prego di cercare di non inviarmi files .dwg, .doc, .xls, .ppt. Preferisco formati liberi. Please try to avoid to send me .dwg, .doc, .xls, .ppt files. I prefer free formats. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formato_aperto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_format Ivan Marchesini Perugia (Italy) Socio fondatore GFOSS "Geospatial Free and Open Source Software" http://www.gfoss.it e-mail: ivan.marchesini@xxxxxxxxxxx ivan.marchesini@xxxxxxxxx fax (mailfax): +39 1782092534 jabber: geoivan73@xxxxxxxxxx skype: geoivan73
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
