Re: 57 minute SELECT
| От | Claudio Freire |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 57 minute SELECT |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGTBQpYdss9oZykcB46zhBBgN+gVCX=8mj2=iciwFywtsHfNqg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: 57 minute SELECT (Samuel Stearns <sstearns@staff.iinet.net.au>) |
| Ответы |
Re: 57 minute SELECT
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Samuel Stearns <sstearns@staff.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Thanks, Claudio: > > http://explain.depesz.com/s/WJQx If you have a test database, and if it doesn't hurt other queries of course, try clustering on the ip index. I believe your problem is that the index isn't helping much, it's probably hurting you in fact. If you cluster over ip, however, the scan will go almost sequentially, and there will be no wasted bytes in the pages fetched, which will be much friendlier on your I/O subsystem. If I were in your shoes, I'd cluster each of the monthly tables as they become inactive.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: