Re: Reasonable amount of indices

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Patric <lists(at)p-dw(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reasonable amount of indices
Date: 2007-09-06 23:18:46
Message-ID: 5736.1189120726@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Patric wrote:
>> My Question now is: Is it wise to do so, and create hundreds or maybe
>> thousands of Indices
>> which partition the table for the selections.

> No, this is not helpful -- basically what you are doing is taking the
> first level (the first couple of levels maybe) of the index out of it,

Right --- you'd be *far* better off using a small number of multicolumn
indexes. I wouldn't want to bet that the planner code scales
effectively to thousands of indexes, and even if it does, you're
throwing away any chance of using parameterized queries.

The update overhead is unpleasant to contemplate as well (or is this a
read-only table?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Carlo Stonebanks 2007-09-07 00:06:44 How planner decides left-anchored LIKE can use index
Previous Message Carlo Stonebanks 2007-09-06 23:18:40 Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM