> >If you want both the max and the min, then things are going to be a
> >bit more work. You are either going to want to do two separate
> >selects or join two selects or use subselects. If there aren't
> >enough prices per stock, the sequential scan might be fastest since
> >you only need to go through the table once and don't have to hit
> >the index blocks.
> >It is still odd that you didn't get a big speed up for just the min though.
> I found I'm suffering from an effect detailed in a previous thread titled
> Does "correlation" mislead the optimizer on large tables?
I don't know about large tables, but this is a big problem and
something I'm going to spend some time validating later today. I
think Manfred's patch is pretty good and certainly better than where
we are but I haven't used it yet to see if it's the magic ticket for
many of these index problems.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ken Geis||Date: 2003-08-29 16:56:59|
|Subject: Re: bad estimates|
|Previous:||From: William Yu||Date: 2003-08-29 16:33:51|
|Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load|