From: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Cc: Jens Schipkowski <jens.schipkowski@apus.co.at>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: DB Performance decreases due to often written/accessed
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:22:50 -0500
Message-ID: <20061019172249.GT71084@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4537B394.9000205@archonet.com>
References: <op.thn5e4sj81rjf6@xjens.apus.local>
<453791E6.4020600@archonet.com>
<op.thohq8zj81rjf6@xjens.apus.local>
<4537B394.9000205@archonet.com>
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:19:16PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> OK - these plans look about the same, but the time is greatly different.
> Both have rows=140247 as the estimated number of rows in tbl_reg. Either
> you have many more rows in the second case (in which case you're not
> running ANALYSE enough) or you have lots of gaps in the table (you're
> not running VACUUM enough).
Look closer... the actual stats show that the sorts in the second case
are returning far more rows. And yes, analyze probably needs to happen.
> I'd then try putting an index on (attr1,attr2,attr3...attr6) and see if
> that helps reduce time.
With bitmap index scans, I think it'd be much better to create 6 indexes
and see which ones actually get used (and then drop the others).
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
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: jim@nasby.net, dev@archonet.com, jens.schipkowski@apus.co.at
Subject: Re: DB Performance decreases due to often written/accessed
In-Reply-To: <20061019172249.GT71084@nasby.net>
* 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