Re:
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1038856838.46704.42.camel@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | (<typea@l-i-e.com>) |
Ответы |
Re:
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
> I don't understand why PostgreSQL sometimes chooses not to use the > existing INDEXes to do an index scan instead of sequential scan -- Does it > really think sequential will be faster, or does it eliminate an index scan Yes, and it's generally right. > because there won't be enough hard drive or swap space to do it? Nope. Simply because of time it takes to read from the disk. An index scan makes ~ 1 read per tuple and sequential scans make one per page (gross simplification). > Currently, full text search queries take on the order of 2 minutes to > execute. > We need them to be happening in 5 seconds, if at all possible. How about a couple of explains of the queries. What kind of tuning have you done in postgresql.conf. Whats your hardware like? Have you partitioned the data to separate disks in any way? Are you doing mostly (all?) reads? Some writes? Perhaps clustering? Is this on 7.2 or 7.3? What is the Locale? C or en_US or something else? -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
Вложения
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: