Re: slow query

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: slow query
Date: 2010-06-04 09:00:21
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.00.1006040954200.4083@aragorn.flymine.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Anj Adu wrote:
> http://explain.depesz.com/s/kHa

I'm interested in why the two partitions dev4_act_dy_fact and
dev4_act_dy_fact_2010_05_t3 are treated so differently. I'm guessing that
the former is the parent and the latter the child table?

When accessing the parent table, Postgres is able to use a bitmap AND
index scan, because it has the two indexes dev4_act_dy_dm_nd_indx and
dev4_act_dy_dm_cd_indx. Do the child tables have a similar index setup?

Incidentally, you could get even better than a bitmap AND index scan by
creating an index on (node_id, thedate) on each table.

> random_page_cost=1

I agree with Tomas that this is rarely a useful setting.

Matthew

--
You can configure Windows, but don't ask me how. -- Bill Gates

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Wakeling 2010-06-04 09:27:04 Re: Weird XFS WAL problem
Previous Message tv 2010-06-04 08:13:23 Re: slow query