| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "regme please" <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about indexes |
| Date: | 2008-09-16 18:41:22 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10809161141s11f63f5ak479963c87b105ed1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM, regme please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> I usually create indexes accordingly to the queries used in my software.
>> This means the more often than not I have composited indexes over more than
>> one column.
>> What'd be in PGSQL (v8.3+) the pros and cons of having instead only
>> one-column indexes?
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> Pro:
> Fewer number of smaller well traveled indexes (more efficient from
> cache perspective).
>
> Con:
> Operations that look up multiple fields simultaneously run slower
> (sometimes much slower).
>
> Note that when reviewing sql written by other people in the
> performance list, probably the most common optimization suggestion is
> to use composite indexes.
The other, closely related optimization is functional indexes. If you
need to look up stuff based on date_trunc() then create indexes on
that. Next I'd say partial indexes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brent Wood | 2008-09-16 19:10:17 | Re: foreign key problem |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-09-16 18:24:58 | Re: Question about indexes |