Scott, Vick, the vast majority of the data is generic. But there are
some specific events we need to look up quickly which are probably
less than a few 100,000 records. We did evaluate partial indexes vs
full indexes. The partial index speeds up our specific queries
significantly while only taking a very small amount of space (often <
100MB, compared to a full index on the DB which is up around 20Gb at
the moment).
On 21 April 2017 at 03:01, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote:
>> I'm curious why you have so many partial indexes. Are you trying to make
>> custom indexes per query? It seems to me you might want to consider making
>> the indexes general, and remove the redundant ones (that have the same
>> prefix list of indexed fields).
>>
>> Secondly your table is 102Gb. Clearly there's a lot of data here. How many
>> rows does that take? I would further suggest that you partition this table
>> such that there are no more than about 10 million rows per partition (I've
>> done this by using a id % 100 computation). Maybe in your case it makes
>> sense to partition it based on the "what" field, because it appears you are
>> trying to do that with your partial indexes already.
>
> I would think a two field index might be just as effective and not
> require a lot of maintenance etc.
>
> --
> To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general