From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Cole <cole.jeff@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:37:20 -0500
Message-ID: <19988.1173285440@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FB60C33-F8C7-4E6C-A02C-1D15605C4E96@gmail.com>
References: <9BAE31C9-93A6-48AE-AFED-3BB1947D13F1@gmail.com>
<25081.1173146092@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<43756010-6EF6-4F91-B84E-E7D29599C3E8@gmail.com>
<5644.1173199253@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3FB60C33-F8C7-4E6C-A02C-1D15605C4E96@gmail.com>
Jeff Cole <cole.jeff@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Tom, you are correct, the distribution is uneven... In the 13k
> symptom_reports rows, there are 105 distinct symptom_ids. But the
> first 8k symptom_reports rows only have 10 distinct symptom_ids.
> Could this cause the problem and would there be anything I could do
> to address it?
Ah-hah, yeah, that explains it. Is it worth your time to deliberately
randomize the order of the rows in symptom_reports? It wasn't clear
whether this query is actually something you need to optimize. You
might have other queries that benefit from the rows being in nonrandom
order, so I'm not entirely sure that this is a good thing to do ...
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, cole.jeff@gmail.com
Subject: Re:
In-Reply-To: <19988.1173285440@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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