PostgreSQL table indexing









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I want to index my tables for the following query:



select 
t.*
from main_transaction t
left join main_profile profile on profile.id = t.profile_id
left join main_customer customer on (customer.id = profile.user_id)
where
(upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%')))
and t.service_type = 'SERVICE_1'
and t.status = 'SUCCESS'
and t.mode = 'AUTO'
and t.transaction_type = 'WITHDRAW'
and customer.client = 'corp'
and t.pub_date>='2018-09-05' and t.pub_date<='2018-11-05'
order by t.pub_date desc, t.id asc
LIMIT 1000;


This is how I tried to index my tables:



CREATE INDEX main_transaction_pr_id ON main_transaction (profile_id);
CREATE INDEX main_profile_user_id ON main_profile (user_id);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_client ON main_customer (client);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_gin_req_no ON main_transaction USING gin (upper(request_no) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_gin_phone ON main_customer USING gin (upper(phone) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_general ON main_transaction (service_type, status, mode, transaction_type); --> don't know if this one is true!!


After indexing like above my query is spending over 4.5 seconds for just selecting 1000 rows!



I am selecting from the following table which has 34 columns including 3 FOREIGN KEYs and it has over 3 million data rows:



CREATE TABLE main_transaction (
id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('main_transaction_id_seq'::regclass),
description character varying(255) NOT NULL,
request_no character varying(18),
account character varying(50),
service_type character varying(50),
pub_date" timestamptz(6) NOT NULL,
"service_id" varchar(50) COLLATE "pg_catalog"."default",
....
);


I am also joining two tables (main_profile, main_customer) for searching customer.phone and for selecting customer.client. To get to the main_customer table from main_transaction table, I can only go by main_profile



My question is how can I index my table too increase performance for above query?



Please, do not use UNION for OR for this case (upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%'))) instead can we use case when condition? Because, I have to convert my PostgreSQL query into Hibernate JPA! And I don't know how to convert UNION except Hibernate - Native SQL which I am not allowed to use.



Explain:



Limit (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.381 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.380 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.pub_date DESC, t.id
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 27kB
-> Hash Join (cost=20817.10..411600.73 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3214.473..3885.369 rows=1 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (t.profile_id = profile.id)
Join Filter: ((upper((t.request_no)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text) OR (upper((customer.phone)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text))
Rows Removed by Join Filter: 593118
-> Seq Scan on main_transaction t (cost=0.00..288212.28 rows=205572 width=1906) (actual time=0.068..1527.677 rows=593119 loops=1)
Filter: ((pub_date >= '2016-09-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND (pub_date <= '2018-11-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND ((service_type)::text = 'SERVICE_1'::text) AND ((status)::text = 'SUCCESS'::text) AND ((mode)::text = 'AUTO'::text) AND ((transaction_type)::text = 'WITHDRAW'::text))
Rows Removed by Filter: 2132732
-> Hash (cost=17670.80..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=211.211..211.211 rows=181516 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 3166kB
-> Hash Join (cost=6936.09..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=46.846..183.689 rows=181516 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (customer.id = profile.user_id)
-> Seq Scan on main_customer customer (cost=0.00..5699.73 rows=181106 width=16) (actual time=0.013..40.866 rows=181618 loops=1)
Filter: ((client)::text = 'corp'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 16920
-> Hash (cost=3680.04..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=46.087..46.087 rows=198404 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 2966kB
-> Seq Scan on main_profile profile (cost=0.00..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=0.008..20.099 rows=198404 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.757 ms
Execution time: 3885.680 ms









share|improve this question























  • Because you are using * and the postgresql choose seq scan, Just take what column do you need. And see again plan execution what postgresql do..
    – dwir182
    Nov 12 at 1:42










  • @LaurenzAlbe. Can you please advice?
    – mr.sanatbek
    Nov 12 at 3:58














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I want to index my tables for the following query:



select 
t.*
from main_transaction t
left join main_profile profile on profile.id = t.profile_id
left join main_customer customer on (customer.id = profile.user_id)
where
(upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%')))
and t.service_type = 'SERVICE_1'
and t.status = 'SUCCESS'
and t.mode = 'AUTO'
and t.transaction_type = 'WITHDRAW'
and customer.client = 'corp'
and t.pub_date>='2018-09-05' and t.pub_date<='2018-11-05'
order by t.pub_date desc, t.id asc
LIMIT 1000;


This is how I tried to index my tables:



CREATE INDEX main_transaction_pr_id ON main_transaction (profile_id);
CREATE INDEX main_profile_user_id ON main_profile (user_id);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_client ON main_customer (client);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_gin_req_no ON main_transaction USING gin (upper(request_no) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_gin_phone ON main_customer USING gin (upper(phone) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_general ON main_transaction (service_type, status, mode, transaction_type); --> don't know if this one is true!!


After indexing like above my query is spending over 4.5 seconds for just selecting 1000 rows!



I am selecting from the following table which has 34 columns including 3 FOREIGN KEYs and it has over 3 million data rows:



CREATE TABLE main_transaction (
id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('main_transaction_id_seq'::regclass),
description character varying(255) NOT NULL,
request_no character varying(18),
account character varying(50),
service_type character varying(50),
pub_date" timestamptz(6) NOT NULL,
"service_id" varchar(50) COLLATE "pg_catalog"."default",
....
);


I am also joining two tables (main_profile, main_customer) for searching customer.phone and for selecting customer.client. To get to the main_customer table from main_transaction table, I can only go by main_profile



My question is how can I index my table too increase performance for above query?



Please, do not use UNION for OR for this case (upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%'))) instead can we use case when condition? Because, I have to convert my PostgreSQL query into Hibernate JPA! And I don't know how to convert UNION except Hibernate - Native SQL which I am not allowed to use.



Explain:



Limit (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.381 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.380 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.pub_date DESC, t.id
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 27kB
-> Hash Join (cost=20817.10..411600.73 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3214.473..3885.369 rows=1 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (t.profile_id = profile.id)
Join Filter: ((upper((t.request_no)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text) OR (upper((customer.phone)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text))
Rows Removed by Join Filter: 593118
-> Seq Scan on main_transaction t (cost=0.00..288212.28 rows=205572 width=1906) (actual time=0.068..1527.677 rows=593119 loops=1)
Filter: ((pub_date >= '2016-09-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND (pub_date <= '2018-11-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND ((service_type)::text = 'SERVICE_1'::text) AND ((status)::text = 'SUCCESS'::text) AND ((mode)::text = 'AUTO'::text) AND ((transaction_type)::text = 'WITHDRAW'::text))
Rows Removed by Filter: 2132732
-> Hash (cost=17670.80..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=211.211..211.211 rows=181516 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 3166kB
-> Hash Join (cost=6936.09..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=46.846..183.689 rows=181516 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (customer.id = profile.user_id)
-> Seq Scan on main_customer customer (cost=0.00..5699.73 rows=181106 width=16) (actual time=0.013..40.866 rows=181618 loops=1)
Filter: ((client)::text = 'corp'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 16920
-> Hash (cost=3680.04..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=46.087..46.087 rows=198404 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 2966kB
-> Seq Scan on main_profile profile (cost=0.00..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=0.008..20.099 rows=198404 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.757 ms
Execution time: 3885.680 ms









share|improve this question























  • Because you are using * and the postgresql choose seq scan, Just take what column do you need. And see again plan execution what postgresql do..
    – dwir182
    Nov 12 at 1:42










  • @LaurenzAlbe. Can you please advice?
    – mr.sanatbek
    Nov 12 at 3:58












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I want to index my tables for the following query:



select 
t.*
from main_transaction t
left join main_profile profile on profile.id = t.profile_id
left join main_customer customer on (customer.id = profile.user_id)
where
(upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%')))
and t.service_type = 'SERVICE_1'
and t.status = 'SUCCESS'
and t.mode = 'AUTO'
and t.transaction_type = 'WITHDRAW'
and customer.client = 'corp'
and t.pub_date>='2018-09-05' and t.pub_date<='2018-11-05'
order by t.pub_date desc, t.id asc
LIMIT 1000;


This is how I tried to index my tables:



CREATE INDEX main_transaction_pr_id ON main_transaction (profile_id);
CREATE INDEX main_profile_user_id ON main_profile (user_id);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_client ON main_customer (client);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_gin_req_no ON main_transaction USING gin (upper(request_no) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_gin_phone ON main_customer USING gin (upper(phone) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_general ON main_transaction (service_type, status, mode, transaction_type); --> don't know if this one is true!!


After indexing like above my query is spending over 4.5 seconds for just selecting 1000 rows!



I am selecting from the following table which has 34 columns including 3 FOREIGN KEYs and it has over 3 million data rows:



CREATE TABLE main_transaction (
id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('main_transaction_id_seq'::regclass),
description character varying(255) NOT NULL,
request_no character varying(18),
account character varying(50),
service_type character varying(50),
pub_date" timestamptz(6) NOT NULL,
"service_id" varchar(50) COLLATE "pg_catalog"."default",
....
);


I am also joining two tables (main_profile, main_customer) for searching customer.phone and for selecting customer.client. To get to the main_customer table from main_transaction table, I can only go by main_profile



My question is how can I index my table too increase performance for above query?



Please, do not use UNION for OR for this case (upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%'))) instead can we use case when condition? Because, I have to convert my PostgreSQL query into Hibernate JPA! And I don't know how to convert UNION except Hibernate - Native SQL which I am not allowed to use.



Explain:



Limit (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.381 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.380 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.pub_date DESC, t.id
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 27kB
-> Hash Join (cost=20817.10..411600.73 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3214.473..3885.369 rows=1 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (t.profile_id = profile.id)
Join Filter: ((upper((t.request_no)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text) OR (upper((customer.phone)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text))
Rows Removed by Join Filter: 593118
-> Seq Scan on main_transaction t (cost=0.00..288212.28 rows=205572 width=1906) (actual time=0.068..1527.677 rows=593119 loops=1)
Filter: ((pub_date >= '2016-09-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND (pub_date <= '2018-11-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND ((service_type)::text = 'SERVICE_1'::text) AND ((status)::text = 'SUCCESS'::text) AND ((mode)::text = 'AUTO'::text) AND ((transaction_type)::text = 'WITHDRAW'::text))
Rows Removed by Filter: 2132732
-> Hash (cost=17670.80..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=211.211..211.211 rows=181516 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 3166kB
-> Hash Join (cost=6936.09..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=46.846..183.689 rows=181516 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (customer.id = profile.user_id)
-> Seq Scan on main_customer customer (cost=0.00..5699.73 rows=181106 width=16) (actual time=0.013..40.866 rows=181618 loops=1)
Filter: ((client)::text = 'corp'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 16920
-> Hash (cost=3680.04..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=46.087..46.087 rows=198404 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 2966kB
-> Seq Scan on main_profile profile (cost=0.00..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=0.008..20.099 rows=198404 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.757 ms
Execution time: 3885.680 ms









share|improve this question















I want to index my tables for the following query:



select 
t.*
from main_transaction t
left join main_profile profile on profile.id = t.profile_id
left join main_customer customer on (customer.id = profile.user_id)
where
(upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%')))
and t.service_type = 'SERVICE_1'
and t.status = 'SUCCESS'
and t.mode = 'AUTO'
and t.transaction_type = 'WITHDRAW'
and customer.client = 'corp'
and t.pub_date>='2018-09-05' and t.pub_date<='2018-11-05'
order by t.pub_date desc, t.id asc
LIMIT 1000;


This is how I tried to index my tables:



CREATE INDEX main_transaction_pr_id ON main_transaction (profile_id);
CREATE INDEX main_profile_user_id ON main_profile (user_id);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_client ON main_customer (client);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_gin_req_no ON main_transaction USING gin (upper(request_no) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_customer_gin_phone ON main_customer USING gin (upper(phone) gin_trgm_ops);
CREATE INDEX main_transaction_general ON main_transaction (service_type, status, mode, transaction_type); --> don't know if this one is true!!


After indexing like above my query is spending over 4.5 seconds for just selecting 1000 rows!



I am selecting from the following table which has 34 columns including 3 FOREIGN KEYs and it has over 3 million data rows:



CREATE TABLE main_transaction (
id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('main_transaction_id_seq'::regclass),
description character varying(255) NOT NULL,
request_no character varying(18),
account character varying(50),
service_type character varying(50),
pub_date" timestamptz(6) NOT NULL,
"service_id" varchar(50) COLLATE "pg_catalog"."default",
....
);


I am also joining two tables (main_profile, main_customer) for searching customer.phone and for selecting customer.client. To get to the main_customer table from main_transaction table, I can only go by main_profile



My question is how can I index my table too increase performance for above query?



Please, do not use UNION for OR for this case (upper(t.request_no) like upper(('%'||@requestNumber||'%')) or OR upper(c.phone) LIKE upper(concat('%',||@phoneNumber||,'%'))) instead can we use case when condition? Because, I have to convert my PostgreSQL query into Hibernate JPA! And I don't know how to convert UNION except Hibernate - Native SQL which I am not allowed to use.



Explain:



Limit (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.381 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=411601.73..411601.82 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3885.380..3885.380 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.pub_date DESC, t.id
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 27kB
-> Hash Join (cost=20817.10..411600.73 rows=38 width=1906) (actual time=3214.473..3885.369 rows=1 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (t.profile_id = profile.id)
Join Filter: ((upper((t.request_no)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text) OR (upper((customer.phone)::text) ~~ '%20181104-2158-2723948%'::text))
Rows Removed by Join Filter: 593118
-> Seq Scan on main_transaction t (cost=0.00..288212.28 rows=205572 width=1906) (actual time=0.068..1527.677 rows=593119 loops=1)
Filter: ((pub_date >= '2016-09-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND (pub_date <= '2018-11-05 00:00:00+05'::timestamp with time zone) AND ((service_type)::text = 'SERVICE_1'::text) AND ((status)::text = 'SUCCESS'::text) AND ((mode)::text = 'AUTO'::text) AND ((transaction_type)::text = 'WITHDRAW'::text))
Rows Removed by Filter: 2132732
-> Hash (cost=17670.80..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=211.211..211.211 rows=181516 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 3166kB
-> Hash Join (cost=6936.09..17670.80 rows=180984 width=16) (actual time=46.846..183.689 rows=181516 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (customer.id = profile.user_id)
-> Seq Scan on main_customer customer (cost=0.00..5699.73 rows=181106 width=16) (actual time=0.013..40.866 rows=181618 loops=1)
Filter: ((client)::text = 'corp'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 16920
-> Hash (cost=3680.04..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=46.087..46.087 rows=198404 loops=1)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 4 Memory Usage: 2966kB
-> Seq Scan on main_profile profile (cost=0.00..3680.04 rows=198404 width=8) (actual time=0.008..20.099 rows=198404 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.757 ms
Execution time: 3885.680 ms






postgresql performance indexing






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 12 at 7:49









Laurenz Albe

43.6k92746




43.6k92746










asked Nov 11 at 19:47









mr.sanatbek

427




427











  • Because you are using * and the postgresql choose seq scan, Just take what column do you need. And see again plan execution what postgresql do..
    – dwir182
    Nov 12 at 1:42










  • @LaurenzAlbe. Can you please advice?
    – mr.sanatbek
    Nov 12 at 3:58
















  • Because you are using * and the postgresql choose seq scan, Just take what column do you need. And see again plan execution what postgresql do..
    – dwir182
    Nov 12 at 1:42










  • @LaurenzAlbe. Can you please advice?
    – mr.sanatbek
    Nov 12 at 3:58















Because you are using * and the postgresql choose seq scan, Just take what column do you need. And see again plan execution what postgresql do..
– dwir182
Nov 12 at 1:42




Because you are using * and the postgresql choose seq scan, Just take what column do you need. And see again plan execution what postgresql do..
– dwir182
Nov 12 at 1:42












@LaurenzAlbe. Can you please advice?
– mr.sanatbek
Nov 12 at 3:58




@LaurenzAlbe. Can you please advice?
– mr.sanatbek
Nov 12 at 3:58












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













With the restriction to not use UNION, you won't get a good plan.



You can slightly speed up processing with the following indexes:



main_transaction ((service_type::text), (status::text), (mode::text),
(transaction_type::text), pub_date)
main_customer ((client::text))


These should at least get rid of the sequential scans, but the hash join that takes the lion's share of the processing time will remain.






share|improve this answer




















    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53252549%2fpostgresql-table-indexing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    With the restriction to not use UNION, you won't get a good plan.



    You can slightly speed up processing with the following indexes:



    main_transaction ((service_type::text), (status::text), (mode::text),
    (transaction_type::text), pub_date)
    main_customer ((client::text))


    These should at least get rid of the sequential scans, but the hash join that takes the lion's share of the processing time will remain.






    share|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      With the restriction to not use UNION, you won't get a good plan.



      You can slightly speed up processing with the following indexes:



      main_transaction ((service_type::text), (status::text), (mode::text),
      (transaction_type::text), pub_date)
      main_customer ((client::text))


      These should at least get rid of the sequential scans, but the hash join that takes the lion's share of the processing time will remain.






      share|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        With the restriction to not use UNION, you won't get a good plan.



        You can slightly speed up processing with the following indexes:



        main_transaction ((service_type::text), (status::text), (mode::text),
        (transaction_type::text), pub_date)
        main_customer ((client::text))


        These should at least get rid of the sequential scans, but the hash join that takes the lion's share of the processing time will remain.






        share|improve this answer












        With the restriction to not use UNION, you won't get a good plan.



        You can slightly speed up processing with the following indexes:



        main_transaction ((service_type::text), (status::text), (mode::text),
        (transaction_type::text), pub_date)
        main_customer ((client::text))


        These should at least get rid of the sequential scans, but the hash join that takes the lion's share of the processing time will remain.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 12 at 7:47









        Laurenz Albe

        43.6k92746




        43.6k92746



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53252549%2fpostgresql-table-indexing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

            Node.js Script on GitHub Pages or Amazon S3

            Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto