Re: R: Index on integer or on string field

Are you saying your indexed field has only 50 distinct values? Seems a horrible candidate for an index. Might be good to partition on those fifty values but ten million records probably doesn't warrant that.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 15, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> wrote:
>
> Hello Arthur!
>
> So, i read that btree-gin have got "the ability to enforce uniqueness".
>
> If in this 10.millions long table i have, in index, 50 recurring values, i can leave the alphabetical field and change to btree-gin the index on it?!
>
> Thank you!
> Francesco
>
> Da: Arthur Silva [arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com]
> Inviato: venerdì 15 maggio 2015 17.26
> A: Job
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Oggetto: Re: [GENERAL] Index on integer or on string field
>
> You should probably experiment with a btree-gin index on those.
> Em 15/05/2015 12:22, "Job" <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> escreveu:
>> Hello,
>>
>> i have a table of about 10 millions of records, with the index on a string field.
>> Actually is alphabetical; since queries are about 100/200 per seconds, i was looking for a better way to improve performance and reduce workload.
>>
>> The unique values, of that fields, are about the 50 (category name), and we could create a second table to codify, with numerical integer values, the 50 recurring names.
>>
>> Is index are integer and not characteral, performance are better and workload reduces?
>>
>> Is there any comparisons?
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Francesco
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general