Re: Indexes on Large Tables

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Sampson" <cjs@cynic.net>
To: "Donny Drummonds" <donny@cypresstg.com>
Cc: <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Indexes on Large Tables


> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Donny Drummonds wrote:
>
> > If I do not index the column from the where clause the query returns
> > the 150,000 rows in 4 and a half minutes. If in do index the column
> > from the where clause using a btree the 150,000 rows return in 11 and
> > a half minutes.
> >
> > Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Well, I'm not sure if this is the insight you're looking for, but....
>
> The reason it takes longer if you use an index is that you change
> from sequential I/O (which is relatively fast) to random I/O (which
> is relatively slow). With the table scan (reading the entire table in
> whatever order it's in on the disk) you're reading several times as much
> data, but you're not doing head seeks all over the place to move the
> head to the place where the next bit of data to be read is.
>
> Obviously, in this case, even though an index was available, the planner
> was wrong to chose to use it rather than just read the entire table.
> That is, as someone else mentioned, likely due to bad statistics: the
> planner thought you were going to select a very small part of the table,
> rather than ten percent of it (which is a pretty large fraction, for
> these purposes). Try doing an ANALYZE.
>
> cjs

If the index that you use in the WHERE clause is the most common method that
you are accessing the table then I recommend that you periodically run the
cluster command:
CLUSTER indexname ON tablename
When a table is clustered, it is physically reordered on disk based on the
index information.

Donald