| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | andremachado <andremachado(at)techforce(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance |
| Date: | 2006-03-07 17:18:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1141751939.18820.174.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 11:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > Lastly, I noticed that after you clusters on all your indexes, the query
> > planner switched from a merge join to a hash join, and it was slower.
> > You might wanna try turning off hash joins for a quick test to see if
> > merge joins are any faster.
>
> Anyway please note that clustering "all indexes" does not really make
> sense. You can cluster only on one index. If you cluster on another,
> then the first clustering will be lost. Better make sure to cluster on
> the one index where it makes the most difference.
Note that I was referring to his clustering on an index for each table.
I.e. not on every single index. but he clustered on four tables /
indexes at once, so that was what I was referring to. Sorry for any
confusion there.
So, do you see any obvious, low hanging fruit here?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-03-07 17:22:24 | Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-03-07 17:15:14 | Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance |