| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa(at)wp(dot)pl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and a problem |
| Date: | 2009-09-16 09:34:42 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0909160234w490b7e44ud46b29482ec46b54@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa(at)wp(dot)pl> wrote:
> So, I was close - bad index... DESCending is much better.
> Thanks to Grzegorz Ja\skiewicz hi has strengthened me in the conjecture.
>
> I'm posting this - maybe someone will find something useful in that case.
>
> ps. query was and is good :-)
Sure, This was talked about a lot on -hackers. The cost of 'back-walk'
index fetch is a lot.
So for anyone who thought it isn't back then, well - here's real life proof.
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2009-09-17 07:58:35 | Re: Possible causes of sometimes slow single-row UPDATE with trivial indexed condition? |
| Previous Message | Andrzej Zawadzki | 2009-09-15 20:10:49 | Re: CLUSTER and a problem |