Re: Why no performance boost although I added an index?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why no performance boost although I added an index? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200304150128.h3F1Suc29563@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why no performance boost although I added an index? (Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
We have an FAQ item about this, 4.8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > The problem is that if you are iterating over a large portion of your > dataset using an index, your disk has to do this: > > Seek to the next index entry > > Seek to the corresponding table entry > > Seek to the next index entry > > Seek to the corresponding table entry > > ... > > If you get a lot of that, your disk will spend more time seeking > back-and-forth than actually reading data. Imagine if you used a CD > player and were constantly switching back between track 5 and track 9 of > the CD every 2 seconds - you would spend more time seeking than listening. > > With two disks, you have one read-write head on the index, and one on the > table, so although they may be jumping around a little in the file, they > aren't moving nearly as much as if they are on the same disk. Buffering > may take the jumps out completely. > > For small index scans, it makes little difference. For large index scans, > having the index on the same drive can really kill you. > > To put them on different disks, you have to do the following: > > Find the OID of the entity you wish to move. > Stop the database. > Move the entity to wherever you want it. > Symlink it to the original location. > > The problems with this method are that: > > a) The DB has to be down to do it > > b) The symlink gets destroyed if you rebuild the index or cluster the > table. > > Having said all that, I must say that I don't normally do this to my > databases, I just keep myself aware of the potential problems. > > Jon > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Dan Langille wrote: > > > On 7 Apr 2003 at 15:05, Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > > > > > This is a really big lose if your index and table are on the same > > > disk. > > > > Can you quantity "really big" for us please? Not all of us have more > > than one disk per box. I haven't looked into the ability for PG to > > put tables and indexes on specific disks. > > -- > > Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: