4 ms·
They’re out there—but I just ran EXPLAIN ANALYZE on my company’s search for them, and the query planner’s not too happy. It has to scan the entire resume heap b
by riwsky 4y ago
They’re out there—but I just ran EXPLAIN ANALYZE on my company’s search for them, and the query planner’s not too happy. It has to scan the entire resume heap before doing an on-site join with candidates, all while dealing with resource contention from queries of other employers. I know recruiters and e.g. triplebyte, stackoverflow all offer indexes to speed up this search, but in our case those indexes wouldn’t fit in cash.
- ColonelPhantom 4y agoWhy does the index need to fit in "cash" (cache RAM)? Generally an index on disk, especially SSD, is far faster than traversing the entire dataset, because it allows the query executor to quickly narrow it down. Even if this requires some disk IO, it's a lot faster than doing all the disk IO for the entire dataset.
- lostcolony 4y agoI'm not sure if you missed the joke (he basically was saying "It's hard to hire people who can do this sort of thing; they're out there but in demand and recruiters are expensive" but using DB terminology) and are thinking he's actually describing a DB operation, or if you're building on it so obliquely -I- am missing the joke you're trying to make.
- doctor_eval 4y agoThat was very very good, but I wonder what sort of latency you experienced on the query that produced that result.