On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Steven Schlansker <steven@likeness.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I assume this is not easy with standard PG but I wanted to double check.
>
> I have a column that has a very uneven distribution of values. ~95% of the values will be the same, with some long
tailof another few dozens of values.
>
> I want to have an index over this value. Queries that select the most common value will not use the index, because
itis a overwhelming percentage of the table. This means that ~95% of the disk space and IOPS to maintain the index is
"wasted".
>
> I cannot use a hardcoded partial index because:
> 1) The common value is not known at schema definition time, and may change (very slowly) over time.
>
>
> I think this is going to turn into a game of whack-a-mole. There is going to have to be some transition period
duringwhich all or most of the rows need to be indexed. So that amount of space is going to have to be available, and
giventhat it is available, what advantage is there to using it some of the time and not using it some of the time? You
can'tfeasibly use it for something else during the off periods, because then you will run into emergency out of space
situations.
This is a good point.
I could define it further to e.g. only take values which make up < 10% of the table, for example, which may solve this
problem.
But from the responses I've been getting it sounds like there's nothing standard that will "just solve my problem" and
it'snot worth the effort to me to cook up something intelligent right now.
>
>
> 2) JDBC uses prepared statements for everything, and the value to be selected is not known at statement prepare time,
soany partial indices are ignored (this is a really really obnoxious behavior and makes partial indices almost useless
combinedwith prepared statements, sadly…)
>
>
> What version are you using? This has been improved in 9.2.0.
Thank goodness! We are in the process of migrating to the 9.2 branch now, so I am thrilled to get this. I'm sorry I
didn'tmention the version earlier, funny how the simplest things escape your mind when you're trying to make a good
mailinglist post...
Thanks again for all the input.
