From: | decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Fekete <danieleff(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Partial index usage |
Date: | 2009-02-21 03:22:11 |
Message-ID: | EF67481D-C67D-471A-8198-EEEEFCB8B0EE@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Feb 16, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> CREATE INDEX uidx_product_partno_producer_id
>> ON product
>> USING btree
>> (partno, producer_id);
>>
>>
>> CREATE INDEX idx_product_partno
>> ON product
>> USING btree
>> (partno);
>>
>> Can I safely delete the second one?
>
> You can safely delete BOTH in that it won't hurt your data, only
> potentially hurt performance.
>
> Deleting the index on (partno) should somewhat improve insert
> performance and performance on updates that can't be done via HOT.
>
> However, the index on (partno, producer_id) is requires more
> storage and
> memory than the index on just (partno). AFAIK it's considerably slower
> to scan.
Actually, that's not necessarily true. If both partno and procuder_id
are ints and you're on a 64bit platform, there won't be any change in
index size, due to alignment issues.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | sathiya psql | 2009-02-21 07:14:38 | how the hdd read speed is related to the query execution speed. |
Previous Message | Denis Lussier | 2009-02-21 01:40:02 | Re: Benchmark comparing PostgreSQL, MySQL and Oracle |