Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 11:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > > > Lastly, I noticed that after you clusters on all your indexes, the query > > > planner switched from a merge join to a hash join, and it was slower. > > > You might wanna try turning off hash joins for a quick test to see if > > > merge joins are any faster. > > > > Anyway please note that clustering "all indexes" does not really make > > sense. You can cluster only on one index. If you cluster on another, > > then the first clustering will be lost. Better make sure to cluster on > > the one index where it makes the most difference. > > Note that I was referring to his clustering on an index for each table. > I.e. not on every single index. but he clustered on four tables / > indexes at once, so that was what I was referring to. Sorry for any > confusion there.
Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted. > So, do you see any obvious, low hanging fruit here? Sorry, I didn't look at his test case very closely :-( -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
