From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Barnham <andrew(dot)barnham(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Query planner suggestion, for indexes with similar but not exact ordering. |
Date: | 2011-11-30 20:50:47 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob8zSgSe5Od4s17i4dSbnOcuL5otchEUAVH-OM=rciJ-A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Andrew Barnham
<andrew(dot)barnham(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder, if it is possible and worthwhile, to setup the query planner to
> recognize that because of the stats I indicate above, that a sort by partnum
> is almost exactly the same as a sort by partnum+franchise. And doing a
> Index scan on partnum index, and sorting results in memory will be
> dramatically faster. The sort buffer only needs to be very small, will only
> grow to 8 records only at most in my above example. The buffer will scan
> partnum index, and as long as partnum is the same, it will sort that small
> segment, as soon as the partnum increments when walking the index, the
> buffer zeros out again for next sort group.
This has come up before and seems worthwhile, but nobody's implemented it yet.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-30 20:58:28 | Re: Problems with FTS |
Previous Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2011-11-30 16:17:33 | Re: Guidance Requested - Bulk Inserting + Queries |