Re: Speeding up Aggregates

From: Dror Matalon <dror(at)zapatec(dot)com>
To: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Speeding up Aggregates
Date: 2003-10-03 22:16:58
Message-ID: 20031003221658.GS87525@rlx11.zapatec.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:10:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:53, Dror Matalon wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:44:49PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > > item_max_date() looks like this:
> > > > select max(dtstamp) from items where channel = $1 and link = $2;
> > >
> > > It is too bad the (channel, link) index doesn't have dtstamp at the end
> > > of it, otherwise the below query would be a gain (might be a small one
> > > anyway).
> > >
> > > select dtstamp
> > > from items
> > > where channel = $1
> > > and link = $2
> > > ORDER BY dtstamp DESC
> > > LIMIT 1;
>
> It didn't make a difference even with the 3 term index? I guess you
> don't have very many common values for channel / link combination.

There's no noticeable difference between two term and three term
indexes.

>
>
>
> How about the below? Note the word STABLE on the end.
>
> CREATE or REPLACE FUNCTION item_max_date (int4, varchar) RETURNS
> timestamptz AS '
> select max(dtstamp) from items where channel = $1 and link = $2;
> ' LANGUAGE 'sql' STABLE;

Made no difference.

--
Dror Matalon
Zapatec Inc
1700 MLK Way
Berkeley, CA 94709
http://www.zapatec.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matt Clark 2003-10-03 23:21:32 Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?
Previous Message Neil Conway 2003-10-03 22:11:45 Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?