From: | Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb(at)eskimo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Holger Marzen <holger(at)marzen(dot)de>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why no performance boost although I added an index? |
Date: | 2003-04-07 22:05:43 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSU.4.44.0304071505190.5024-100000@eskimo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> If the index scan is reading a large enough percentage of the rows (and
> depending on the clustering of values), it may be reading enough pages
> that there's no advantage (or even a disadvantage) to using the index.
> This is due to both the reads of the index itself and the fact that it'll
> often be reading the values in the main table (it still needs to get the
> commit info from the table data) in random order rather than sequential
> order which can lose some optimizations the OS often gives to sequential
> reads.
This is a really big lose if your index and table are on the same disk.
Jon
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Doug McNaught | 2003-04-07 22:12:07 | Re: vacuum by non-owner |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-07 21:31:29 | Re: Why no performance boost although I added an index? |