| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Ken Egervari" <ken(at)upfactor(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance problem with semi-large tables |
| Date: | 2005-01-29 21:51:10 |
| Message-ID: | 200501291351.10335.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ken,
Actually, your problem isn't that generic, and might be better solved by
dissecting an EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
> 1. Should I just change beg to change the requirements so that I can make
> more specific queries and more screens to access those?
This is always good.
> 2. Can you
> recommend ways so that postgres acts on big tables more efficiently? I'm
> not really interested in this specific case (I just made it up). I'm more
> interested in general solutions to this general problem of big table sizes
> with bad filters and where join orders don't seem to help much.
Well, you appear to be using ORDER BY ... LIMIT. Is there a corresponding
index on the order by criteria?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Parker | 2005-01-29 22:04:26 | Re: Performance problem with semi-large tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-29 15:51:18 | Re: Postgres server getting slow!! |