From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: salman <salmanb@quietcaresystems.com>
Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Question about CLUSTER
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:33:37 -0600
Message-ID: <dcc563d10802111333o535bfc8xd28efd7d2c5e0d26@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47B0AA1F.8040101@quietcaresystems.com>
References: <47B0AA1F.8040101@quietcaresystems.com>
On Feb 11, 2008 2:03 PM, salman <salmanb@quietcaresystems.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm planning to cluster a few large tables in our database but I'm
> unable to find any recommendations/documentation on best practices --
> Mainly, whether it's better to use an index which has a higher idx_scan
> value, a higher idx_tup_read value, or the higest idx_tup_fetch value.
>
> I'm assuming that idx_tup_read would probably be the best choice, but
> want to get other opinions before proceeding.
If you've got two indexes that are both being hit a lot, it might be
worth looking into their correlation, and if they get used a lot
together, look at creating an index on both.
But I'd guess that idx_tup_read would be a good bet.
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, salmanb@quietcaresystems.com, pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Question about CLUSTER
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10802111333o535bfc8xd28efd7d2c5e0d26@mail.gmail.com>
* 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