From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index on integer or on string field |
Date: | 2015-05-16 00:31:01 |
Message-ID: | CAOR=d=0bvy4a3EGMk1Ogd533rO2CTrN510fbrsaEdP3P+S=M4w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i have a table of about 10 millions of records, with the index on a string field.
> Actually is alphabetical; since queries are about 100/200 per seconds, i was looking for a better way to improve performance and reduce workload.
>
> The unique values, of that fields, are about the 50 (category name), and we could create a second table to codify, with numerical integer values, the 50 recurring names.
>
> Is index are integer and not characteral, performance are better and workload reduces?
>
> Is there any comparisons?
Have you considered using a multi-column index here? if there's a more
selective field you could index along with your rather non-selective
one that might work better. But it's hard to tell without looking at
you database usage etc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-05-16 04:10:29 | Re: pg_upgrade failing from 9.3 to 9.4 because "template0" already exists |
Previous Message | William Dunn | 2015-05-15 23:36:52 | Re: R: Index on integer or on string field |