| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Jarvis <thangalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimize date query for large child tables: GiST or GIN? |
| Date: | 2010-06-01 17:14:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1275412319-sup-2359@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Excerpts from Matthew Wakeling's message of mar jun 01 05:55:35 -0400 2010:
> On Sun, 23 May 2010, David Jarvis wrote:
> > The measurement table indexes (on date and weather station) were not being
> > used because the only given date ranges (e.g., 1900 - 2009) were causing the
> > planner to do a full table scan, which is correct.
>
> I wonder if you might see some benefit from CLUSTERing the tables on the
> index.
Eh, isn't this a GIN or GiST index? I don't think you can cluster on
those, can you?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeres Caldeira Gomes | 2010-06-01 17:47:15 | PgAdmin iii - Explain. |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-06-01 16:28:25 | Re: PostgreSQL Function Language Performance: C vs PL/PGSQL |