Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:19:16PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
>> OK - these plans look about the same, but the time is greatly different.
>> Both have rows=140247 as the estimated number of rows in tbl_reg. Either
>> you have many more rows in the second case (in which case you're not
>> running ANALYSE enough) or you have lots of gaps in the table (you're
>> not running VACUUM enough).
>
> Look closer... the actual stats show that the sorts in the second case
> are returning far more rows. And yes, analyze probably needs to happen.
The results are different, I agree, but the plans (and estimates) are
the same. Given the deletes and inserts I wasn't sure whether this was
just lots more rows or a shift in values.
>> I'd then try putting an index on (attr1,attr2,attr3...attr6) and see if
>> that helps reduce time.
>
> With bitmap index scans, I think it'd be much better to create 6 indexes
> and see which ones actually get used (and then drop the others).
Good idea.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd