From: | "Mario Weilguni" <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance while loading data and indexing |
Date: | 2002-09-26 09:50:08 |
Message-ID: | 4D618F6493CE064A844A5D496733D6670390D5@freedom.icomedias.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>Well the test runs were for 10GB of data. Schema is attached. Read in fixed
>fonts..Last nullable fields are dummies but may be used in fututre and
varchars
>are not acceptable(Not my requirement). Tuple size is around 100 bytes..
>The index creation query was
>
>CREATE INDEX index1 ON tablename (esn,min,datetime);
>
>What if I put datetime ahead? It's likely the the datetime field will have
high
>degree of locality being log data..
Just an idea, I noticed you use char(10) for esn and min, and use this as
index. Are these really fixed len fields all having 10 bytes? Otherwise
varchar(10) would be better, because your tables, and especially the indices
will be probably much smaller.
what average length do you have for min and esn?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2002-09-26 09:54:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing |
Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2002-09-26 09:49:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing |