In response to Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:59 -0800, adrobj wrote:
> > This is probably a FAQ, but I can't find a good answer...
> > So - are there common techniques to compensate for the lack of
> > clustered/covering indexes in PostgreSQL? To be more specific - here is my
> > table (simplified):
> > topic_id int
> > post_id int
> > post_text varchar(1024)
> > The most used query is: SELECT post_id, post_text FROM Posts WHERE
> > topic_id=XXX. Normally I would have created a clustered index on topic_id,
> > and the whole query would take ~1 disk seek.
> > What would be the common way to handle this in PostgreSQL, provided that I
> > can't afford 1 disk seek per record returned?
> Periodically CLUSTER the table on the topic_id index. The table will not
> be perfectly clustered at all times, but it will be close enough that it
> won't make much difference.
> There's still the hit of performing a CLUSTER, however.
> Another option, if you have a relatively small number of topic_ids, is
> to break it into separate tables, one for each topic_id.
Or materialize the data, if performance is the utmost requirement.
Create second table:
Now add a trigger to your original table that updates materialized_topics
any time the first table is altered. Thus you always have fast lookups.
Of course, this may be non-optimal if that table sees a lot of updates.
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Josh Trutwin||Date: 2007-11-16 20:36:50|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL, and FreeBSD|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2007-11-16 19:34:36|
|Subject: Re: Clustered/covering indexes (or lack thereof :-)|