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

Re: FW: KVP table vs. hstore - hstore performance (Was: Postgres NoSQL emulation)

From: "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com, sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, m1ott(at)hsr(dot)ch
Subject: Re: FW: KVP table vs. hstore - hstore performance (Was: Postgres NoSQL emulation)
Date: 2011-05-23 10:53:57
Message-ID: op.vvxkj7o8eorkce@apollo13 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> Hi Merlin
>
> The analyze command gave the following result:
>
> On the KVP table:
> Index Scan using kvpidx on bench_kvp (cost=0.00..8.53 rows=1 width=180)  
> (actual time=0.037..0.038 rows=1 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (bench_id = '200000_200000'::text)
> Total runtime: 0.057 ms
>
> And on the Hstore table:
> Bitmap Heap Scan on bench_hstore (cost=32.22..3507.54 rows=1000  
> width=265) (actual time=145.040..256.173 rows=1 loops=1)
> Recheck Cond: (bench_hstore @> '"bench_id"=>"200000_200000"'::hstore)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on hidx (cost=0.00..31.97 rows=1000 width=0)  
> (actual time=114.748..114.748 rows=30605 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (bench_hstore @> '"bench_id"=>"200000_200000"'::hstore)
> Total runtime: 256.211 ms
>
> For Hstore I'm using a GIST index.
>

Try to create a btree index on "(bench_hstore->bench_id) WHERE  
(bench_hstore->bench_id) IS NOT NULL".


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Shaun ThomasDate: 2011-05-23 13:26:11
Subject: Re: [OT]: Confidentiality disclosures in list posts (Was: SORT performance - slow?)
Previous:From: Craig RingerDate: 2011-05-23 05:22:51
Subject: Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core

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