You could also look into a filtered index that perhaps only covers dates
earlier than a certain point in time where regular performance wouldn't be
hindered. But Gavin is absolutely right otherwise.
On Jan 5, 2014 5:22 PM, "Sergey Konoplev" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Gavin Flower
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Gavin Flower
wrote:
> On 06/01/14 11:08, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
> [...]
>
>> An index might be considered as useless when there were no idx scans for
>> the significantly long period. However it might be non-trivial to define
>> this period. Eg. one have a query bui
On 06/01/14 11:08, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
[...]
An index might be considered as useless when there were no idx scans
for the significantly long period. However it might be non-trivial to
define this period. Eg. one have a query building an annual report
that uses this index and the period here
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:53 PM, wrote:
> Index name idx_scan idx_tup_read idx_tup_fetch
> idx1 1000
> 0
> idx2 100 2000
> idx3 100 200
Need some help interpreting the results of queries against the
pg_stat_user_index view.
Given the following four contrieved indexes and their scan, read and fetch
values in pg_stat_user_index view:
Index name idx_scan idx_tup_read idx_tup_fetch
idx1 100
