Hello,

we have several indexes such as:

create index foo1 on bla (a);
create index foo2 on bla (b);
create index foo3 on bla (a,b);

They are all used often by frequently used queries (according to
pg_statio_user_indexes), but we need somewhat higher INSERT/UPDATE
performance (having tuned most other things) so we'd like to remove some.

Which of the above would generally speaking be most redundant / best to
remove? Is a 2-dimensional index always much slower than a 1-dimensional
with the first column for queries on the first column? Any other
suggestions?

Thanks,
Marinos


--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

am Wed, dem 26.03.2008, um 15:18:53 +0100 mailte Marinos Yannikos folgendes:
> Hello,
>
> we have several indexes such as:
>
> create index foo1 on bla (a);
> create index foo2 on bla (b);
> create index foo3 on bla (a,b);
>
> They are all used often by frequently used queries (according to
> pg_statio_user_indexes), but we need somewhat higher INSERT/UPDATE
> performance (having tuned most other things) so we'd like to remove some.

Which version do you have? Since 8.1 pg can use a so called 'bitmap
index scan', because of this feature i guess you don't need the index
foo3. (if you have 8.1 or higher)


Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, A. Kretschmer wrote:
>> create index foo1 on bla (a);
>> create index foo2 on bla (b);
>> create index foo3 on bla (a,b);
>
> Which version do you have? Since 8.1 pg can use a so called 'bitmap
> index scan', because of this feature i guess you don't need the index
> foo3. (if you have 8.1 or higher)

Depending on your query, the bitmap index scan could be a good deal slower
than index foo3.

All of this depends on what queries you are going to be running, and how
much you value insert performance compared to select performance. I know
that foo3 can do everything that foo1 can, so foo1 could be viewed as
redundant. I'd be interested in hearing from the Powers That Be whether
foo2 is redundant too. It wasn't a while back.

My impression is that foo3 isn't much more expensive to alter than foo1 -
is that correct?

Matthew

--
Lord grant me patience, and I want it NOW!

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

A. Kretschmer schrieb:
>> create index foo1 on bla (a);
>> create index foo2 on bla (b);
>> create index foo3 on bla (a,b);
>>[...]
>
> Which version do you have? Since 8.1 pg can use a so called 'bitmap
> index scan', because of this feature i guess you don't need the index
> foo3. (if you have 8.1 or higher)

8.3.1 - foo3 is being used though in presence of both foo1 and foo2, so
I'd suppose that it's a better choice even with bitmap index scan
available...

-mjy



--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

am Wed, dem 26.03.2008, um 16:15:20 +0100 mailte Marinos Yannikos folgendes:
> A. Kretschmer schrieb:
> >>create index foo1 on bla (a);
> >>create index foo2 on bla (b);
> >>create index foo3 on bla (a,b);
> >>[...]
> >
> >Which version do you have? Since 8.1 pg can use a so called 'bitmap
> >index scan', because of this feature i guess you don't need the index
> >foo3. (if you have 8.1 or higher)
>
> 8.3.1 - foo3 is being used though in presence of both foo1 and foo2, so
> I'd suppose that it's a better choice even with bitmap index scan
> available...

Maybe...


Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

Marinos Yannikos wrote:
>>
>> Which version do you have? Since 8.1 pg can use a so called 'bitmap
>> index scan', because of this feature i guess you don't need the index
>> foo3. (if you have 8.1 or higher)
>
> 8.3.1 - foo3 is being used though in presence of both foo1 and foo2,
> so I'd suppose that it's a better choice even with bitmap index scan
> available...
>
PostgreSQL can also partially use a multi-column index. For example, if
you dropped your index on (a) Pg could use index (a,b) to help with
queries for `a'. However, the index would be slower than an index on a
alone would be.

See:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/i...lticolumn.html

As usual, the best answer is really "do some testing with your queries,
and with EXPLAIN ANALYZE, and see what works best". Test with inserts
too, because it's likely that the cost of updating each of the three
indexes isn't equal.

It might also be worth looking into using partial indexes if some of
your data is "hotter" than others and perhaps more worth the index
update cost.

--
Craig Ringer

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

>>> create index foo1 on bla (a);
>>> create index foo2 on bla (b);
>>> create index foo3 on bla (a,b);

You say you need faster INSERT performance. Getting rid of some indexes
is a way, but can you tell a bit more about your hardware setup ?
For instance, if you only have one HDD, put an extra HDD in the machine,
and put the database on it, but leave the pg_xlog on the OS's disk. Or the
reverse, depending on which disk is faster, and other factors. Since heavy
INSERTs mean heavy log writing traffic, this almost doubles your write
bandwidth for the cost of a disk. Cheap and efficient. You can also put
the indexes on a third disk, but separating database and log on 2 disks
will give you the most benefits.
If you already have a monster hardware setup, though...

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance