Re: Forcing seq_scan off for large table joined with tiny table yeilds improved performance

From: Mario Splivalo <mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Forcing seq_scan off for large table joined with tiny table yeilds improved performance
Date: 2009-04-06 14:50:49
Message-ID: 49DA16C9.8050405@megafon.hr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> CREATE INDEX photo_info_data_ix_field_value
>> ON user_info_data USING btree (field_value);
>>
>> So, there is index on (user_id, field_name). Postgres is using index for
>> user_id (...WHERE user_id = 12345) but not on field-name (...WHERE
>> field_name = 'f-spot'). When I add extra index on field name:
>>
>> CREATE INDEX photo_info_data_ix__field_name
>> ON user_info_data USING btree (field_name);
>>
>> Then that index is used.
>
> On older versions of pgsql, the second of two terms in a multicolumn
> index can't be used alone. On newer versions it can, but it is much
> less efficient than if it's a single column index or if the term is
> the first one not the second.

I'm using 8.3.7. So, you'd also suggest to keep that extra (in a way
redundant) index on field_name, since I need PK on (photo_id, field_name) ?

Mike

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2009-04-06 15:22:50 Re: Forcing seq_scan off for large table joined with tiny table yeilds improved performance
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2009-04-06 14:47:07 Re: Forcing seq_scan off for large table joined with tiny table yeilds improved performance