I should've also mentioned that we're using PG 9.0.
-----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Russell Keane Sent: 16 November 2012 15:18 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] intercepting where clause on a view or other performance tweak Sorry, I should've added that in the original description. I have an index on search_key and it's never used. If it makes any difference, the table is about 9MB and the index on that field alone is 3MB. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: 16 November 2012 15:05 To: Russell Keane Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] intercepting where clause on a view or other performance tweak Russell Keane <russell.ke...@inps.co.uk> writes: > Running the following query takes 56+ ms as it does a seq scan of the whole > table: > SELECT CODE FROM stuff > WHERE SEARCH_KEY LIKE 'AAAAAA%' Why don't you create an index on search_key, and forget all these other machinations? (If your locale isn't C you'll need to use a varchar_pattern_ops index.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
