Re: Clustered/covering indexes (or lack thereof :-)
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Clustered/covering indexes (or lack thereof :-) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1195241676.22428.218.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Clustered/covering indexes (or lack thereof :-) (adrobj <adrobj@yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Clustered/covering indexes (or lack thereof :-)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:59 -0800, adrobj wrote: > This is probably a FAQ, but I can't find a good answer... > > So - are there common techniques to compensate for the lack of > clustered/covering indexes in PostgreSQL? To be more specific - here is my > table (simplified): > > topic_id int > post_id int > post_text varchar(1024) > > The most used query is: SELECT post_id, post_text FROM Posts WHERE > topic_id=XXX. Normally I would have created a clustered index on topic_id, > and the whole query would take ~1 disk seek. > > What would be the common way to handle this in PostgreSQL, provided that I > can't afford 1 disk seek per record returned? > Periodically CLUSTER the table on the topic_id index. The table will not be perfectly clustered at all times, but it will be close enough that it won't make much difference. There's still the hit of performing a CLUSTER, however. Another option, if you have a relatively small number of topic_ids, is to break it into separate tables, one for each topic_id. Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: