On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Sergey Koposov <kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> >> Hm, why aren't we getting a IOS? Just for kicks (assuming this is >> test data), can we drop the index on just transitid, leaving the index >> on transitid, healpixid? Is enable_indexonlyscan on? Has idt_match >> been vacuumed? What kind of plan do you get when do: > > > Okay dropping the index on transitid solved the issue with indexonlyscan but > didn't solve the original problem. Actually the indexonlyscan made the > sequential queries faster but not the parallel ones.
How big is idt_match? What if you drop all indexes on idt_match, encouraging all the backends to do hash joins against it, which occur in local memory and so don't have contention? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
