Re: Large data and slow queries

> Did that 50% performance gain come from just the datatype, or that fact that the index became smaller?

How would one measure this?

On 19 April 2017 at 19:48, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 12:31 AM, vinny wrote:
>>
>> Given the number of records, my first thought was either partitioning or
>> partial-indexes.
>> The fewer rows are in the index, the quicker it will be to check,
>> and it's not a lot of work to create separate indexes for lat/long ranges
>> or dates.
>
>
> that only works if the planner can figure out which partitions to use in
> advance, otherwise it ends up having to scan all the partitions.
>
>
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general