| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "John Major" <major(at)cbio(dot)mskcc(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Help w/speeding up range queries? |
| Date: | 2006-11-01 05:58:24 |
| Message-ID: | 13715.1162360704@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> Oops - I missed the point earlier. Start and End are separate attributes so
> this is like an unbounded window in a Start,End space. PostGis provides
> quadtree indexing would provide a terse TID list but you still have the
> problem of how to ensure that the heap tuples being scanned are efficiently
> retrieved, which would only happen if they are grouped similarly to the
> retrieval pattern, right?
Yeah, but I think that's a second-order problem compared to having an
index that's reasonably well matched to the query ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben | 2006-11-01 05:58:36 | big transaction slows down over time - but disk seems almost unused |
| Previous Message | Ben | 2006-11-01 05:41:38 | Re: pg_trgm indexes giving bad estimations? |