ow wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried CLUSTER and it did improve performance, somewhat. The query against
> "clustered" table performs about five (5) times better than the same table but
> "non-clustered". However, even after that table was clustered, the difference
> in performance between single record query and range query is significant:
>
> table Test (see below) has 10M records
> single record - 31 ms and remains mostly constant as table grows
> range query returning 30 records - about 10 secs and grows together with the
> table
>
> Also, CLUSTER is locking the table (in our case this also means locking the
> database), so it may be impossible to use it in production on large tables
> (impossible in our case).
>
> It feels like I really have a problem here. Any ideas? Thanks
>
> P.S. For the future I would consider implementing "CREATE [CLUSTERED] INDEX"
Strange 30 records takes 30x the time than one record. Can you run
ANALYZE and send us an EXPLAIN of the query to make sure it hasn't
changed?
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
