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

Re: Various performance questions

From: Tarhon-Onu Victor <mituc(at)iasi(dot)rdsnet(dot)ro>
To: Dror Matalon <dror(at)zapatec(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Various performance questions
Date: 2003-10-27 15:15:05
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0310271708470.8898@blackblue.iasi.rdsnet.ro (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Dror Matalon wrote:

> Here's the structure of the items table
[snip]
>  pubdate       | timestamp with time zone |
> Indexes:
>     "item_channel_link" btree (channel, link)
>     "item_created" btree (dtstamp)
>     "item_signature" btree (signature)
>     "items_channel_article" btree (channel, articlenumber)
>     "items_channel_tstamp" btree (channel, dtstamp)
> 
> 
> 5. Any other comments/suggestions on the above setup.

	Try set enable_seqscan = off; set enable_indexscan = on; to 
force the planner to use one of the indexes. Analyze the queries from 
your application and see what are the most used columns in WHERE clauses 
and recreate the indexes. select count(*) from items where channel < 
5000; will never use any of the current indexes because none matches 
your WHERE clause (channel appears now only in multicolumn indexes).

-- 
Any views or opinions presented within this e-mail are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of any company, unless
otherwise expressly stated.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-10-27 15:16:05
Subject: Linux Filesystem Shootout
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2003-10-27 15:09:09
Subject: Re: Various performance questions

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