On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Martin Gainty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding is that Partial index is implemented for low cardinality
> scenarios ('Y'/'N') ('T'/'F') (null/not null) ?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_index
>
Low cardinality can apply for more than just bool
n null records would not apply
?
Martin-
- Original Message -
From: Richard Broersma
To: brian
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] how to make this database / query faster
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, brian &l
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As there's an index on id would it be faster to transpose the WHERE
> conditions?
>
> WHERE id > your_last_id
> AND session_key IS NOT NULL
>
> I can't remember if the order of WHERE is significant.
>
I don't think that the order
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select * from users where session_key is not Null order by id offset OFFSET
> limit 300
>
> i want to go through the whole table... it gets really slow like
> greater than 5 minutes when the OFFSET is over 500,000..
Did you try your chance w
mark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As there's an index on id would it be faster to transpose the WHERE
conditions?
WHERE id > your_last_id
AND session_key IS NOT NULL
I can't remember if the order of WHERE is significant.
brian,
i have an index on
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Broersma wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Richard Broersma <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM,
Richard Broersma wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Richard Broersma <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
select * from users where session_key is not Null order b
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Richard Broersma <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > select * from users where session_key is not Null order by id off
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Richard Broersma <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > select * from users where session_key is not Null order by id offset
> > OFFSET limit 300
> >
> > One solution is to retain the last ID from the
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> select * from users where session_key is not Null order by id offset
> OFFSET limit 300
>
> OFFSET actually scans past all of the records that specify in the
"OFFSET". So the bigger your offset the longer the scan will be.
One s
10 matches
Mail list logo
