Re: On Scalability

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Vincenzo Rome ano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: On Scalability
Date: 2010-10-08 16:10:07
Message-ID: AANLkTimvi1ou4mSbNzz5j10Er7vO7gscNUq9aMetSqzL@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Vincenzo Romano
<vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> wrote:
> Do the same conclusions apply to partial indexes?
> I mean, if I have a large number (n>=100 or n>=1000) of partial indexes
> on a single very large table (m>=10**12), how good is the planner to choose the
> right indexes to plan a query?
> Has also this algorithm superlinear complexity?

No, it's also linear. It needs to look at every partial index and
check to see whether it's a candidate for your query. Actually that's
true for regular indexes as well but it has the extra step of proving
that the partial index includes all the rows your query needs which is
not a cheap step.

The size of the table isn't relevant though, except inasmuch as the
savings when actually running the query will be larger for larger
tables so it may be worth spending more time planning queries on large
tables.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-10-08 16:23:48 Re: Sync Replication with transaction-controlled durability
Previous Message Gabriele Bartolini 2010-10-08 16:05:55 Italian PGDay 2010, Call for papers

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ben Chobot 2010-10-08 18:08:21 Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
Previous Message Vincenzo Romano 2010-10-08 10:20:14 Re: On Scalability