On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Patrick B <patrickbake...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3,581 individual pokes into the heap to confirm tuple visibility and >> apply the deleted filter - that could indeed take a while. >> David J. > > > I see.. The deleted column is: > > deleted boolean > > Should I create an index for that? How could I improve this query? > > > Does it execute as slowly when you run it for a 2nd time? > > > No, it doesn't. I think it's because of cache? > Correct - your first execution swallows disk I/O. > > > I would think because of the NOT "deleted" clause. Which is interesting, >> because that's a column which you conveniently didn't include in the >> definition below. > > > My mistake. > > > Would an Index be sufficient to solve the problem? > > A lot would depend on the selectivity of "deleted"... you are tossing less than 1/3rd of the rows here so probably not that helpful - though a partial index over deleted = false would benefit this specific query. If this query dominates your non-PK usage of this table you could consider clustering the table on client_id - that would reduce the I/O hit at the expense of increased maintenance. Really, though, the query you are showing is poorly written - so I am assuming that it is standing in for something else. If that's so you have provided zero context for meaningful opinions to be rendered. Queries against the supposedly large customer table, on the high-cardinality client_id field, which result in many matching rows is going to be a physical problem if the data doesn't remain in cache. CLUSTER can help a bit in that situation. Otherwise your solutions are more likely to by physical and not logical (model/SQL). David J.
