Re: Optimize date query for large child tables: GiST or GIN?

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: David Jarvis <thangalin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimize date query for large child tables: GiST or GIN?
Date: 2010-06-01 09:55:35
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.00.1006011054270.4083@aragorn.flymine.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, 23 May 2010, David Jarvis wrote:
> The measurement table indexes (on date and weather station) were not being
> used because the only given date ranges (e.g., 1900 - 2009) were causing the
> planner to do a full table scan, which is correct.

I wonder if you might see some benefit from CLUSTERing the tables on the
index.

Matthew

--
And the lexer will say "Oh look, there's a null string. Oooh, there's
another. And another.", and will fall over spectacularly when it realises
there are actually rather a lot.
- Computer Science Lecturer (edited)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Wakeling 2010-06-01 12:47:08 Re: PostgreSQL Function Language Performance: C vs PL/PGSQL
Previous Message Mindaugas Riauba 2010-06-01 07:27:18 Re: Zeus IOPS