From: | "Marcin Mank" <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables |
Date: | 2006-09-13 18:39:59 |
Message-ID: | 031701c6d764$05b0c490$0c67a8c0@maniek |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Is there anything I'm missing that is preventing it from using the index?
It
> just seems weird to me that other joins like this work fine and fast
> with indexes,
> but this one won't.
Did You consider clustering both tables on the dsiacctno index?
I just checked that for a 4M rows table even with enable_seqscan=on and
default *page_cost on PG 8.1.4 an index scan is being chosen for
select * from table order by serial_pkey_field
This is essentially the question in Your case - sort it, or get it sorted
via the index at the expense of more random IO.
I think clustering should work for You, but I am no expert, check with
others.
Greetings
Marcin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Marsh | 2006-09-13 18:56:58 | Re: Query Progress (was: Performance With Joins on Large Tables) |
Previous Message | Bucky Jordan | 2006-09-13 18:19:04 | Query Progress (was: Performance With Joins on Large Tables) |