ow wrote: > Hi, > > I tried CLUSTER and it did improve performance, somewhat. The query against > "clustered" table performs about five (5) times better than the same table but > "non-clustered". However, even after that table was clustered, the difference > in performance between single record query and range query is significant: > > table Test (see below) has 10M records > single record - 31 ms and remains mostly constant as table grows > range query returning 30 records - about 10 secs and grows together with the > table > > Also, CLUSTER is locking the table (in our case this also means locking the > database), so it may be impossible to use it in production on large tables > (impossible in our case). > > It feels like I really have a problem here. Any ideas? Thanks > > P.S. For the future I would consider implementing "CREATE [CLUSTERED] INDEX"
Strange 30 records takes 30x the time than one record. Can you run ANALYZE and send us an EXPLAIN of the query to make sure it hasn't changed? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
