From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Matthew Sackman <matthew@lshift.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Massive performance issues
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:47:06 -0400
Message-ID: <5178.1125600426@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050901174231.GE23970@pongo.lshift.net>
References: <20050901174231.GE23970@pongo.lshift.net>
Matthew Sackman <matthew@lshift.net> writes:
> Obviously, to me, this is a problem, I need these queries to be under a
> second to complete. Is this unreasonable?
Yes. Pulling twenty thousand rows at random from a table isn't free.
You were pretty vague about your disk hardware, which makes me think
you didn't spend a lot of money on it ... and on low-ball hardware,
that sort of random access speed just isn't gonna happen.
If the queries you need are very consistent, you might be able to get
some mileage out of CLUSTERing by the relevant index ... but the number
of indexes you've created makes me think that's not so ...
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, matthew@lshift.net
Subject: Re: Massive performance issues
In-Reply-To: <5178.1125600426@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