Are you saying your indexed field has only 50 distinct values? Seems a horrible candidate for an index. Might be good to partition on those fifty values but ten million records probably doesn't warrant that.
Sent from my iPhone > On May 15, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Job <j...@colliniconsulting.it> wrote: > > Hello Arthur! > > So, i read that btree-gin have got "the ability to enforce uniqueness". > > If in this 10.millions long table i have, in index, 50 recurring values, i > can leave the alphabetical field and change to btree-gin the index on it?! > > Thank you! > Francesco > > Da: Arthur Silva [arthur...@gmail.com] > Inviato: venerdì 15 maggio 2015 17.26 > A: Job > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Oggetto: Re: [GENERAL] Index on integer or on string field > > You should probably experiment with a btree-gin index on those. > Em 15/05/2015 12:22, "Job" <j...@colliniconsulting.it> escreveu: >> Hello, >> >> i have a table of about 10 millions of records, with the index on a string >> field. >> Actually is alphabetical; since queries are about 100/200 per seconds, i was >> looking for a better way to improve performance and reduce workload. >> >> The unique values, of that fields, are about the 50 (category name), and we >> could create a second table to codify, with numerical integer values, the 50 >> recurring names. >> >> Is index are integer and not characteral, performance are better and >> workload reduces? >> >> Is there any comparisons? >> >> Thank you! >> Francesco >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
