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
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? |