Thanks for the feedback, everybody.
I spent a couple of days trying to optimise this;
As mentioned , the increased memory is not an option for me, as this query
is part of a report that can be run by any user on an ad hoc basis.
Allocating the required memory to any session on demand is not feasi
Thanks for these suggestions
Unfortunately , I don't have a lot of memory available ( 65 connections ,
work_mem = 64MB in pg conf ).
>> I think index will be of no help here, as (1) you're reading whole table
>> anyway and (2) `amount` is not part of your index.
I did not think that the the fie
> Can you send `EXPLAIN (analyze, buffers)` for your query instead?
> It'll show exactly what's going on.
GroupAggregate (cost=303425.31..339014.43 rows=136882 width=48) (actual
time=4708.181..6688.699 rows=287268 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=23899, temp read=30974 written=30974
-> Sort
please confirm whether aggregate functions such as GROUP BY
should use indexes ?
Thanks in advance
gmb
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Performance-issue-index-not-used-on-GROUP-BY-tp5816702.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list
