From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Mitch Skinner <lists(at)arctur(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simple Join |
Date: | 2005-12-15 19:29:17 |
Message-ID: | 43A1C40D.8040006@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mitch Skinner wrote:
> I saw that; what I'm suggesting is that that you try creating a 3-column
> index on ordered_products using the paid, suspended_sub, and id columns.
> In that order, I think, although you could also try the reverse. It may
> or may not help, but it's worth a shot--the fact that all of those
> columns are used together in the query suggests that you might do better
> with a three-column index on those.
>
> With all three columns indexed individually, you're apparently not
> getting the bitmap plan that Mark is hoping for. I imagine this has to
> do with the lack of multi-column statistics in postgres, though you
> could also try raising the statistics target on the columns of interest.
>
> Setting enable_seqscan to off, as others have suggested, is also a
> worthwhile experiment, just to see what you get.
>
>
Right on. Some of these "coerced" plans may perform much better. If so,
we can look at tweaking your runtime config: e.g.
effective_cache_size
random_page_cost
default_statistics_target
to see if said plans can be chosen "naturally".
cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anjan Dave | 2005-12-15 21:13:04 | Re: SAN/NAS options |
Previous Message | johannesbuehler | 2005-12-15 14:44:23 | effizient query with jdbc |