Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20041218134540.GA25107@uio.no
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Seqscan rather than Index  (Jon Anderson, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (David Brown, )
  Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Richard Huxton, )
   Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:39:18PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> It doesn't seem totally out of wack. You will be limited by the memory
> bandwidth and it looks like you get something on the order of a few
> hundred references to memory per row. That may be a little high, but
> it doesn't seem ridiculously high.

I just tested 8.0.0rc1 -- I got a _50%_ speedup on this operation...

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Steinar H. Gunderson"
Date:
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
From: Theo Galanakis
Date:
Subject: PG Logging is Slow