Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CLUSTER and a problem

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa(at)wp(dot)pl>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and a problem
Date: 2009-09-16 09:34:42
Message-ID: 2f4958ff0909160234w490b7e44ud46b29482ec46b54@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa(at)wp(dot)pl> wrote:

> So, I was close - bad index... DESCending is much better.
> Thanks to Grzegorz Ja\skiewicz  hi has strengthened me in the conjecture.
>
> I'm posting this - maybe someone will find something useful in that case.
>
> ps. query was and is good :-)


Sure, This was talked about a lot on -hackers. The cost of 'back-walk'
index fetch is a lot.
So for anyone who thought it isn't back then, well - here's real life proof.



-- 
GJ

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2009-09-17 07:58:35
Subject: Re: Possible causes of sometimes slow single-row UPDATE with trivial indexed condition?
Previous:From: Andrzej ZawadzkiDate: 2009-09-15 20:10:49
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and a problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group