| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Cheston <ccheston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres 7.4 at 100% |
| Date: | 2004-06-29 13:28:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20040629132813.GA28041@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 01:37:30 -0700,
Chris Cheston <ccheston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ok i just vacuumed it and it's taking slightly longer now to execute
> (only about 8 ms longer, to around 701 ms).
>
> Not using indexes for calllogs(from)... should I? The values for
> calllogs(from) are not unique (sorry if I'm misunderstanding your
> point).
If you are hoping for some other plan than a sequential scan through
all of the records you are going to need an index. You can have an
index on a column (or function) that isn't unique for all rows.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-06-29 13:44:06 | Re: no index-usage on aggregate-functions? |
| Previous Message | Michal Táborský | 2004-06-29 12:30:30 | Slow INSERT |