On Wednesday 19 August 2009 11:31:30 Nikolas Everett wrote:
> 2009/8/19 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > that seems to be the killer:
> > and time >= extract ('epoch' from timestamp '2009-08-12')
> > and time < extract ('epoch' from timestamp '2009-08-13' )
> > You probably need an index on time/epoch:
> > CREATE INDEX foo ON table(extract ('epoch' from timestamp time );
> It looks like those extracts just make constant integer times. You probably
> just create an index on the time column.
> Also, why not store times as timestamps?
> > or something like that, vacuum analyze and retry.
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
> > (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org) To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
We do have an index on url_hits.time
not sure why timestamps were not used, I was not here for the design phase.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Jaime Casanova||Date: 2009-08-20 00:25:11|
|Subject: [PERFORMANCE] how to set wal_buffers|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Kempter||Date: 2009-08-19 17:36:55|
|Subject: Re: Query tuning|