| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Allen Landsidel <alandsidel(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Strange (?) Index behavior? |
| Date: | 2004-11-12 22:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | 6687.1100298900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Allen Landsidel <alandsidel(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:41:51 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Allen Landsidel <alandsidel(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Clustering is really unworkable in this situation.
>>
>> Nonetheless, please do it in your test scenario, so we can see if it has
>> any effect or not.
> It did not, not enough to measure anyway, which does strike me as
> pretty odd.
Me too. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree entirely, because I
really expected to see a significant change.
Lets start from first principles. While you are running this query,
what sort of output do you get from "vmstat 1"? I'm wondering if it's
I/O bound or CPU bound ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Allen Landsidel | 2004-11-13 00:26:39 | Re: Strange (?) Index behavior? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-12 21:19:06 | Re: Clarification on two bits on VACUUM FULL VERBOSE output |