X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45253D7D3B for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:47:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90090-05 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:47:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08854D76D5 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:47:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j81Il6Br005179; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:47:06 -0400 (EDT) To: Matthew Sackman Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Massive performance issues In-reply-to: <20050901174231.GE23970@pongo.lshift.net> References: <20050901174231.GE23970@pongo.lshift.net> Comments: In-reply-to Matthew Sackman message dated "Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:42:31 +0100" Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5178.1125600426@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/14 X-Sequence-Number: 14322 Matthew Sackman 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