Re: [PERFORM] Question about CLUSTER

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: salman <salmanb(at)quietcaresystems(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Question about CLUSTER
Date: 2008-02-11 21:33:37
Message-ID: dcc563d10802111333o535bfc8xd28efd7d2c5e0d26@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-novice pgsql-performance

On Feb 11, 2008 2:03 PM, salman <salmanb(at)quietcaresystems(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm planning to cluster a few large tables in our database but I'm
> unable to find any recommendations/documentation on best practices --
> Mainly, whether it's better to use an index which has a higher idx_scan
> value, a higher idx_tup_read value, or the higest idx_tup_fetch value.
>
> I'm assuming that idx_tup_read would probably be the best choice, but
> want to get other opinions before proceeding.

If you've got two indexes that are both being hit a lot, it might be
worth looking into their correlation, and if they get used a lot
together, look at creating an index on both.

But I'd guess that idx_tup_read would be a good bet.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-02-11 21:39:54 Re: 8.3.0 upgrade, confused by documentation
Previous Message Chander Ganesan 2008-02-11 20:28:06 Re: 8.3.0 upgrade, confused by documentation

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Burkhardt 2008-02-12 01:35:40 user administration with photo and address
Previous Message salman 2008-02-11 20:03:43 Question about CLUSTER

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2008-02-11 21:37:34 Re: Join Query Perfomance Issue
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2008-02-11 21:29:40 Re: Update with Subquery Performance