Re: index speed and failed expectations?
От | rihad |
---|---|
Тема | Re: index speed and failed expectations? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 489708EB.9000705@mail.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: index speed and failed expectations? ("Adam Rich" <adam.r@sbcglobal.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: index speed and failed expectations?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Adam Rich wrote: >> This query from the console: >> >> select * from stats order by start_time; >> >> takes 8 seconds before starting its output. Am I wrong in assuming that >> the index on start_time should make ORDER BY orders of magnitude >> faster? >> Or is this already fast enough? Or should I max up some memory (buffer) >> setting to achieve greater speeds? Not that the speed is crucial, just >> curious. >> > > Postgresql won't use the index for queries like this. Due to the > MVCC implementation, the index does not contain all necessary information > and would therefore be slower than using the table data alone. > > (What postgresql lacks is a first_row/all_rows hint like oracle) > > However, if you limit the number of rows enough, you might force it > to use an index: > > select * from stats order by start_time limit 1000; > Thanks! Since LIMIT/OFFSET is the typical usage pattern for a paginated data set accessed from the Web (which is my case), it immediately becomes a non-issue.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: