From: Marcin Mank <marcin.mank@gmail.com>
To: Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:39:59 +0200
Message-ID: <031701c6d764$05b0c490$0c67a8c0@maniek> (raw)
References: <38242de90609121517y62517040v8622b9ae93cba23d@mail.gmail.com>
> Is there anything I'm missing that is preventing it from using the index?
It
> just seems weird to me that other joins like this work fine and fast
> with indexes,
> but this one won't.
Did You consider clustering both tables on the dsiacctno index?
I just checked that for a 4M rows table even with enable_seqscan=on and
default *page_cost on PG 8.1.4 an index scan is being chosen for
select * from table order by serial_pkey_field
This is essentially the question in Your case - sort it, or get it sorted
via the index at the expense of more random IO.
I think clustering should work for You, but I am no expert, check with
others.
Greetings
Marcin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: marcin.mank@gmail.com, icub3d@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables
In-Reply-To: <031701c6d764$05b0c490$0c67a8c0@maniek>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox