| From: | Seth Ladd <seth(at)picklematrix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | ways to force index use? |
| Date: | 2003-10-13 23:48:15 |
| Message-ID: | B6A1D046-FDD7-11D7-A960-000A9576D038@picklematrix.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Hello,
Thanks to all the previous suggestions for my previous question. I've
done a lot more research and playing around since then, and luckily I
think I have a better understanding of postgresql.
I still have some queries that don't use an index, and I was wondering
if there were some other tricks to try out?
My system: RH9, PG 7.3.4, IDE, 1 gig RAM, celeron 1.7
My Table Columns (all bigints): start, stop, step1, step2, step3
My Indexes: btree(start), btree(stop), btree(start, stop)
Size of table: 16212 rows
Params: shared_buffers = 128, effective_cache_size = 8192
The Query: explain analyze select * from path where start = 653873 or
start = 649967 or stop = 653873 or stop = 649967
The Result:
Seq Scan on "path" (cost=0.00..450.22 rows=878 width=48) (actual time=0
.08..40.50 rows=1562 loops=1)
Filter: (("start" = 653873) OR ("start" = 649967) OR (stop = 653873) OR
(stop = 649967))
Total runtime: 42.41 msec
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to get that query to use an index?
Is it even possible? I did run vacuum analyze right before this test.
I'm only beginning to customize the parameters in postgresql.conf
(mainly from tips from this list).
Thanks very much!
Seth
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-13 23:50:58 | Re: exponential time growth of handling subqueries |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-13 22:36:40 | Re: postgres --help-config |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-10-13 23:55:25 | Re: ways to force index use? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-13 22:25:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Sun performance - Major discovery! |