X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1659DC95A for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:15:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77120-01 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:15:17 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mx2.surnet.cl (mx2.surnet.cl [216.155.73.181]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68DA9DC896 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:15:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) ([216.155.73.165]) by mx2.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2006 14:38:03 -0300 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,385,1131332400"; d="scan'208"; a="34777249:sNHT18595228" Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (201.221.201.29) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 43A978FD0096D11D; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:15:15 -0300 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 459F9C45AFD; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:15:14 -0300 (CLST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:15:14 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Scott Marlowe Cc: andremachado , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance Message-ID: <20060307171514.GE6748@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Marlowe , andremachado , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20060307162842.M37264@techforce.com.br> <1141751333.18820.172.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1141751333.18820.172.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.581 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.338, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44] X-Spam-Score: 1.581 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200603/63 X-Sequence-Number: 17500 Scott Marlowe wrote: > Lastly, I noticed that after you clusters on all your indexes, the query > planner switched from a merge join to a hash join, and it was slower. > You might wanna try turning off hash joins for a quick test to see if > merge joins are any faster. Anyway please note that clustering "all indexes" does not really make sense. You can cluster only on one index. If you cluster on another, then the first clustering will be lost. Better make sure to cluster on the one index where it makes the most difference. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.