Re: [HACKERS] Index performance

2008-01-04 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:11:07AM +0200, Brian Modra wrote: > Thanks, I think you have me on the right track. I'm testing a vacuum > analyse now to see how long it takes, and then I'll set it up to > automatically run every night (so that it has a chance to complete > before about 6am.) Note that

Re: [HACKERS] Index performance

2008-01-02 Thread Brian Modra
Thanks, I think you have me on the right track. I'm testing a vacuum analyse now to see how long it takes, and then I'll set it up to automatically run every night (so that it has a chance to complete before about 6am.) On 02/01/2008, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 20

Re: [HACKERS] Index performance

2008-01-02 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:53:35PM +0200, Brian Modra wrote: > This table is added to in real time, at least 10 rows per second. [. . .] > If I do a select which uses the pkey index, where equal to the ID > column, and greater than one of the values, which should return about > 1500 rows, it some

[HACKERS] Index performance

2008-01-02 Thread Brian Modra
Hi, I have a table with a primarry key made of two columns. One of these has about 150 distinct values which are unique IDs, and the other has over 3 million almost unique data values. This table is added to in real time, at least 10 rows per second. If I do a select which uses the pkey index, wh