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 3A0DC9DC9A3 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:22:28 -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 74218-09 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:22:26 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mx1.surnet.cl (mx1.surnet.cl [216.155.73.180]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC609DC97A for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:22:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) ([216.155.73.165]) by mx1.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2006 14:46:51 -0300 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,172,1139194800"; d="scan'208"; a="45026893:sNHT19437220" Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (201.221.201.29) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 43A978FD0096D457; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:22:24 -0300 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B7F82C45AFD; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:22:24 -0300 (CLST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:22:24 -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: <20060307172224.GG6748@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> <20060307171514.GE6748@surnet.cl> <1141751939.18820.174.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1141751939.18820.174.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=1.58 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.339, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44] X-Spam-Score: 1.58 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200603/65 X-Sequence-Number: 17502 Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 11:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > 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. > > Note that I was referring to his clustering on an index for each table. > I.e. not on every single index. but he clustered on four tables / > indexes at once, so that was what I was referring to. Sorry for any > confusion there. Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted. > So, do you see any obvious, low hanging fruit here? Sorry, I didn't look at his test case very closely :-( -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.