From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ed Loehr <pggeneral(at)bluepolka(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Questions on 7.2.1 query plan choices |
Date: | 2002-04-18 06:52:09 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.43.0204181548060.457-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Curt Sampson's nearby remarks about partial indexes are not a bad
> suggestion.
I just tried this out, and the disk space savings alone were pretty
stunning. On a 300,000 row table with about 1750 TRUE values and
the rest FALSE, the full index was over 5 MB and the partial was
less than 50K.
But it turns out that the analyzer's stats were good enough that
it made little difference to performance. Once I analyzed the table,
even with the full index postgres figured out that the index scan
(estimating 1300 values, in this case) would be faster.
So I guess it's key correlation thing that did it, or perhaps he
just had not analzyed the table.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lee Kindness | 2002-04-18 07:46:33 | determining database size |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-18 05:49:05 | Re: Questions on 7.2.1 query plan choices |