On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Israel Brewster <israel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [load of new data] > Limit (cost=354643835.82..354643835.83 rows=1 width=9) (actual > time=225998.319..225998.320 rows=1 loops=1) > [...] I ran the query again [...] > Limit (cost=354643835.82..354643835.83 rows=1 width=9) (actual > time=9636.165..9636.166 rows=1 loops=1) > So from four minutes on the first run to around 9 1/2 seconds on the second. > Presumably this difference is due to caching? It is likely to be, at least in part. Did you run VACUUM on the data before the first run? If not, hint bits may be another part of it. The first access to each page after the bulk load would require some extra work for visibility checking and would cause a page rewrite for the hint bits. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
