From: | "Anibal David Acosta" <aa(at)devshock(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Craig James'" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: how fast index works? |
Date: | 2011-09-06 20:28:12 |
Message-ID: | 008b01cc6cd3$820581c0$86108540$@devshock.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks!
De: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] En nombre de Craig James
Enviado el: martes, 06 de septiembre de 2011 03:18 p.m.
Para: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] how fast index works?
On 9/6/11 11:31 AM, Anibal David Acosta wrote:
Hi everyone,
My question is, if I have a table with 500,000 rows, and a SELECT of one row
is returned in 10 milliseconds, if the table has 6,000,000 of rows and
everything is OK (statistics, vacuum etc)
can i suppose that elapsed time will be near to 10?
Theoretically the index is a B-tree with log(N) performance, so a larger
table could be slower. But in a real database, the entire subtree might
fall together in one spot on the disk, so retrieving a record from a 500,000
record database could take the same time as a 6,000,000 record database.
On the other hand, if you do a lot of updates and don't have your autovacuum
parameters set right, a 500,000 record index might get quite bloated and
slow as it digs through several disk blocks to find one record.
There is no simple answer to your question. In a well-maintained database,
6,000,000 records are not a problem.
Craig
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Damon Snyder | 2011-09-06 20:37:41 | Re: Rather large LA |
Previous Message | Alan Hodgson | 2011-09-06 19:47:55 | Re: Rather large LA |