Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index
Date: 2015-01-16 04:15:46
Message-ID: 54B89072.3050603@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


> Right, I suspect that bloating is possibly the significant factor then -
> can you REINDEX?

Believe me, it's on the agenda. Of course, this is on a server with 90%
saturated IO, so doing a repack is going to take some finessing.

BTW, effective_cache_size is set to 100GB. So I suspect that it's the
other issue with Tom mentioned, which is that 9.2 really doesn't take
physical index size into account.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Roman Konoval 2015-01-16 07:49:01 Re: shared_buffers vs Linux file cache
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2015-01-16 04:00:44 Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index