I did a quite test vs postgres of that query.
This instance has 40 zones and about 2.25k records.
Explain analyze reports:
QUERY PLAN
Limit (cost=105.26..105.27 rows=1 width=72) (actual time=0.542..0.542 rows=1
loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=105.26..105.46 rows=78 width=72) (actual time=0.541..0.541
rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: ordername DESC
Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on records (cost=22.53..104.87 rows=78 width=72)
(actual time=0.119..0.429 rows=208 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: ((domain_id = 1) AND (ordername IS NOT NULL))
Filter: ((NOT disabled) AND (ordername <= 'hash'::text))
Rows Removed by Filter: 199
Heap Blocks: exact=61
-> Bitmap Index Scan on recordorder (cost=0.00..22.51 rows=223
width=0) (actual time=0.099..0.099 rows=407 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((domain_id = 1) AND (ordername IS NOT NULL))
Planning time: 0.194 ms
Execution time: 0.575 ms
(13 rows)
Time: 1.320 ms
So I'd expect pg to be significantly faster for you.
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6
_______________________________________________
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
https://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
