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
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 |