From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | salman <salmanb(at)quietcaresystems(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Question about CLUSTER |
Date: | 2008-02-11 21:33:37 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10802111333o535bfc8xd28efd7d2c5e0d26@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-novice pgsql-performance |
On Feb 11, 2008 2:03 PM, salman <salmanb(at)quietcaresystems(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm planning to cluster a few large tables in our database but I'm
> unable to find any recommendations/documentation on best practices --
> Mainly, whether it's better to use an index which has a higher idx_scan
> value, a higher idx_tup_read value, or the higest idx_tup_fetch value.
>
> I'm assuming that idx_tup_read would probably be the best choice, but
> want to get other opinions before proceeding.
If you've got two indexes that are both being hit a lot, it might be
worth looking into their correlation, and if they get used a lot
together, look at creating an index on both.
But I'd guess that idx_tup_read would be a good bet.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-11 21:39:54 | Re: 8.3.0 upgrade, confused by documentation |
Previous Message | Chander Ganesan | 2008-02-11 20:28:06 | Re: 8.3.0 upgrade, confused by documentation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Burkhardt | 2008-02-12 01:35:40 | user administration with photo and address |
Previous Message | salman | 2008-02-11 20:03:43 | Question about CLUSTER |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-02-11 21:37:34 | Re: Join Query Perfomance Issue |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-02-11 21:29:40 | Re: Update with Subquery Performance |