Re: [GENERAL] 50 MB Table

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that I wasn't as clear as I
could be. This table is normalized and as far as I understand, what I'm
doing with it is not extraordinary. The schema is basically...

CREATE TABLE info (
lastname char(50),
street_name char(50),
street_number char(5),
... (a bunch of other stuff that works fine with '=')
);

CREATE INDEX nx_info1 ON info (lastname);
CREATE INDEX nx_info2 ON info (street_name);

The select is as simple as this in most cases...

SELECT * FROM info WHERE street_name LIKE 'MAIN%';

.,,the table about 50MB worth, about 70,000 records. I have an index on
'lastname' and 'street_name' and I need to search on each of these with
'LIKE'. So I was wondering about ways to speed this up. It's very slow.
It takes about 20 seconds for the above query. I even uppercased all the
names, hoping tht would help. I wondered if I'd used the wrong index
type (btree), or if there were some flags that would help. Is there a
way to bust the indexes out alpha on the first letter say, or some other
such scheme. BTW the machine is RH6.1 with 128mb ram, 27 GB, P350, no X
and no users (except me ;)

Paul Condon wrote:
>
> JB wrote:
>
> > I have a 50 MB +- table in postgres. The data is normalized so there's
> > not much I can do about the size. The tuples are about 512 bytes so
> > there's a pile of 'em. I need searching on of several fields, a couple
> > in particular are text fields that needs 'LIKE'. The problem is, the
> > thing is way too slow. So, I was wondering, before I go hunting for some
> > other solution, could anyone here point me to some ways to (hand)
> > optimize the searching in postgres? Different indexes, hashing and LIKE?
> > I'm not sure where to go with this.
> >
> > The basic criteria are:
> > - sizes of indexes, etc, is not an issue. There's lot's of room on the
> > box.
> > - the data is basically static so a read-only (if such a thing) is
> > fine.
> > - it needs to be FAST
> >
> > cheers
> > jb
> >
> > ************
>
> It sounds as if you have several different kinds of information encoded in
> a single column using special words or letter combinations. This is a
> violation of the ideal that data items should be "atomic." You should make
> a catalog of all the things that you want to be able to say about each
> tuple, and design a relational schema in which atomic assertion is given
> its own column (attribute). Then you will be able to create indices on
> each, and you won't have to use LIKE in your WHERE clauses.
>
> Paul

--
I'm in direct contact with many advanced fun CONCEPTS.

Paul Condon wrote:
>
> JB wrote:
>
> > I have a 50 MB +- table in postgres. The data is normalized so there's
> > not much I can do about the size. The tuples are about 512 bytes so
> > there's a pile of 'em. I need searching on of several fields, a couple
> > in particular are text fields that needs 'LIKE'. The problem is, the
> > thing is way too slow. So, I was wondering, before I go hunting for some
> > other solution, could anyone here point me to some ways to (hand)
> > optimize the searching in postgres? Different indexes, hashing and LIKE?
> > I'm not sure where to go with this.
> >
> > The basic criteria are:
> > - sizes of indexes, etc, is not an issue. There's lot's of room on the
> > box.
> > - the data is basically static so a read-only (if such a thing) is
> > fine.
> > - it needs to be FAST
> >
> > cheers
> > jb
> >
> > ************
>
> It sounds as if you have several different kinds of information encoded in
> a single column using special words or letter combinations. This is a
> violation of the ideal that data items should be "atomic." You should make
> a catalog of all the things that you want to be able to say about each
> tuple, and design a relational schema in which atomic assertion is given
> its own column (attribute). Then you will be able to create indices on
> each, and you won't have to use LIKE in your WHERE clauses.
>
> Paul
>
> ************

--
I'm in direct contact with many advanced fun CONCEPTS.