From: "Rainer Mager" <rainer@vanten.com>
To: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <003001c9b645$e8a7cec0$b9f76c40$@com>
	<e7f9235d0904051646j7e8374afncf79e3708ae40c20@mail.gmail.com>
	<003501c9b656$a9c73fe0$fd55bfa0$@com>
	<7371.1238981597@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <7371.1238981597@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: difficulties with time based queries 
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:35:36 +0900
Message-ID: <003601c9b668$bf63c2d0$3e2b4870$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: Acm2V67taS6N+dZOSV+76Ry0403szgAD8gPg
Content-Language: en-us


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> "Rainer Mager" <rainer@vanten.com> writes:
> >> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> >> Hmm ... it's pretty unusual to see the index fetch portion of a
> bitmap
> >> scan take the bulk of the runtime.  Usually that part is fast and
> where
> >> the pain comes is in fetching from the heap.   I wonder whether that
> >> index has become bloated.  How big are the table and the index
> >> physically?  (Look at pg_class.relpages, or if you want a really
> >> accurate number try pg_relation_size().)
> 
> > Can you give me some more info on how to look at these stats?
> 
> Since you've got 8.3 it's easy: select pg_relation_size('tablename')
> (or indexname).  The result is in bytes, so you might want to
> divide by 1K or 1M to keep the number readable.

Ok, nice and simple...I like it:

The result for the table ad_log, is 30,063 MB. The result for the index,
ad_log_date_all, is 17,151 MB. I guess this roughly makes sense since the
index is on 4 fields and the table only has 6 fields.

For the particular query I'm trying to optimize at the moment I believe I
should be able to use an index that references only 2 fields, which, I
imagine, should reduce the time needed to read it. I'll play with this a bit
and see what happens.

Any other suggestions?

--Rainer