From: | Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes |
Date: | 2008-04-10 09:51:13 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0804101042050.20402@aragorn.flymine.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, PFC wrote:
... Lots of useful advice ...
> - If you often query rows with the same gene_ref, consider using
> CLUSTER to physically group those rows on disk. This way you can get all rows
> with the same gene_ref in 1 seek instead of 2000. Clustered tables also make
> Bitmap scan happy.
In my opinion this is the one that will make the most difference. You will
need to run:
CLUSTER gene_prediction_view USING gene_prediction_view_gene_ref_key;
after you insert significant amounts of data into the table. This
re-orders the table according to the index, but new data is always written
out of order, so after adding lots more data the table will need to be
re-clustered again.
> - Switch to a RAID10 (4 times the IOs per second, however zero gain if
> you're single-threaded, but massive gain when concurrent)
Greg Stark has a patch in the pipeline that will change this, for bitmap
index scans, by using fadvise(), so a single thread can utilise multiple
discs in a RAID array.
Matthew
--
Prolog doesn't have enough parentheses. -- Computer Science Lecturer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2008-04-10 12:39:28 | shared_buffers in 8.2.x |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2008-04-10 08:46:09 | Re: varchar index joins not working? |