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

Re: Inefficient query plan

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: roederja(at)ethz(dot)ch, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inefficient query plan
Date: 2010-08-23 14:40:25
Message-ID: AANLkTim1GOMuN+EzEj9CcePUHQ=71uLhF=Dn3p1n3tpE@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
I am not a fan of 'do this - this is best' response to queries like that.
Rather: this is what you should try, and choose whichever one suits you better.
So, rather than 'natural keys ftw', I am giving him another option to
choose from.

You see, in my world, I was able to improve some large dbs performance
10+ times fold, by going for surrogate keys. But in them cases, joins
were performed on 2+ varchar PK fields, and the whole thing was
crawwwling.

So, don't narrow down to one solution because it worked for you. Keep
an open book.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Grzegorz JaśkiewiczDate: 2010-08-23 14:41:01
Subject: Re: Inefficient query plan
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-08-23 14:38:35
Subject: Re: Inefficient query plan

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