Re: Simple query, 10 million records...MySQL ten times faster
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Simple query, 10 million records...MySQL ten times faster |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b42b73150704261409j4472cc31xd069986f8a5f1269@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Simple query, 10 million records...MySQL ten times faster (zardozrocks <zardozrocks@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 24 Apr 2007 14:26:46 -0700, zardozrocks <zardozrocks@gmail.com> wrote: > I have this table: > > CREATE TABLE test_zip_assoc ( > id serial NOT NULL, > f_id integer DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL, > lat_radians numeric(6,5) DEFAULT 0.00000 NOT NULL, > long_radians numeric(6,5) DEFAULT 0.00000 NOT NULL > ); > CREATE INDEX lat_radians ON test_zip_assoc USING btree (lat_radians); > CREATE INDEX long_radians ON test_zip_assoc USING btree > (long_radians); > > > > It's basically a table that associates some foreign_key (for an event, > for instance) with a particular location using longitude and > latitude. I'm basically doing a simple proximity search. I have > populated the database with *10 million* records. I then test > performance by picking 50 zip codes at random and finding the records > within 50 miles with a query like this: > > SELECT id > FROM test_zip_assoc > WHERE > lat_radians > 0.69014816041 > AND lat_radians < 0.71538026567 > AND long_radians > -1.35446228028 > AND long_radians < -1.32923017502 > > > On my development server (dual proc/dual core Opteron 2.8 Ghz with 4GB > ram) this query averages 1.5 seconds each time it runs after a brief > warmup period. In PostGreSQL it averages about 15 seconds. > > Both of those times are too slow. I need the query to run in under a > second with as many as a billion records. I don't know if this is > possible but I'm really hoping someone can help me restructure my > indexes (multicolumn?, multiple indexes with a 'where' clause?) so > that I can get this running as fast as possible. > > If I need to consider some non-database data structure in RAM I will > do that too. Any help or tips would be greatly appreciated. I'm > willing to go to greath lengths to test this if someone can make a > good suggestion that sounds like it has a reasonable chance of > improving the speed of this search. There's an extensive thread on my > efforts already here: You can always go the earthdist route. the index takes longer to build (like 5x) longer than btree, but will optimize that exact operation. merlin
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: