Re: Optimizing select count query which often takes over 10 seconds

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Alexander Farber <alexander(dot)farber(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimizing select count query which often takes over 10 seconds
Date: 2013-01-25 16:00:06
Message-ID: 1359129606.24620.9.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 16:13 +0100, Alexander Farber wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> > You should better create an index on pref_money(yw, money). It could
> > help you get rid of the seqscan and sort operations.
>
> I've created an index with
>
> # create index pref_money_money_index on pref_money(money desc);
>
> and posted the new EXPLAIN output here:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14498974/optimizing-select-count-query-which-often-takes-over-10-seconds
>
> But it doesn't seem to change much or
> am I too unexperienced to see the change?
>

There's no change because you created an index on money alone, and that
change sure didn't give PostgreSQL a chance to do anything better. What
I told you before was to create an index on yw, and money, like this :

create index pref_money_yw_money_idx on pref_money(yw, money);

This should help you to change the plan and, I hope, get better
performances.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gene Poole 2013-01-25 16:21:01 Where Can I Find...
Previous Message pamkiki 2013-01-25 15:49:39 Re: Temporary schemas