Mitch Skinner wrote:
> I saw that; what I'm suggesting is that that you try creating a 3-column
> index on ordered_products using the paid, suspended_sub, and id columns.
> In that order, I think, although you could also try the reverse. It may
> or may not help, but it's worth a shot--the fact that all of those
> columns are used together in the query suggests that you might do better
> with a three-column index on those.
> With all three columns indexed individually, you're apparently not
> getting the bitmap plan that Mark is hoping for. I imagine this has to
> do with the lack of multi-column statistics in postgres, though you
> could also try raising the statistics target on the columns of interest.
> Setting enable_seqscan to off, as others have suggested, is also a
> worthwhile experiment, just to see what you get.
Right on. Some of these "coerced" plans may perform much better. If so,
we can look at tweaking your runtime config: e.g.
to see if said plans can be chosen "naturally".
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Anjan Dave||Date: 2005-12-15 21:13:04|
|Subject: Re: SAN/NAS options|
|Previous:||From: johannesbuehler||Date: 2005-12-15 14:44:23|
|Subject: effizient query with jdbc|