> Did that 50% performance gain come from just the datatype, or that fact that the index became smaller? How would one measure this? On 19 April 2017 at 19:48, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/19/2017 12:31 AM, vinny wrote: >> >> Given the number of records, my first thought was either partitioning or >> partial-indexes. >> The fewer rows are in the index, the quicker it will be to check, >> and it's not a lot of work to create separate indexes for lat/long ranges >> or dates. > > > that only works if the planner can figure out which partitions to use in > advance, otherwise it ends up having to scan all the partitions. > > > > -- > john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
