To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: Advice on optimizing select/index
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 14:34:10 +0200
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <knsvg4$ldg$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <39DB3954-1DDF-4551-B794-E65AF48F2C96@autouncle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
In-Reply-To: <39DB3954-1DDF-4551-B794-E65AF48F2C96@autouncle.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 22.05.2013 16:37, Niels Kristian Schj=F8dt wrote:

> In reality the adverts that are selected is all 'active'. I'm hence
> wondering if it theoretically (and in reality of cause) would make my
> query faster if I did something like:  "SELECT .* FROM cars LEFT
> OUTER JOIN adverts on cars.id =3D adverts.car_id WHERE cars.brand =3D
> 'Audi' AND adverts.state =3D 'active'" with a partial index on "INDEX
> adverts ON (car_id) WHERE state =3D 'active'"?

That sounds reasonable to do.  If you have enough bandwidth on your=20
production database why not just try it out?  Otherwise you could do=20
this on a test database and see how it goes and what plan you get.  Btw.=20
did you look at the original plan?

Cheers

	robert


--=20
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance