Sql index tuning

SQL Index Tuning

Indexing is the highest-leverage performance work in most data-backed systems: the right index turns a multi-second sequential scan into a sub-millisecond lookup, and the wrong one quietly taxes every write forever. This skill is the deep reference for doing it deliberately — how B-tree indexes actually work, how to order composite columns, how to read a query plan, and when an index is the wrong answer. Heavy detail lives in references/; copy-paste DDL and plans in examples/; a runnable index-suggester in scripts/.

Mental model

An index is a sorted, redundant copy of one or more columns plus a pointer back to the row. The database maintains that sort order on every write so reads can binary-search instead of scanning. Two consequences follow directly and explain almost every tuning decision:

Property	Why it matters
Indexes are sorted	They serve equality, range, prefix, ORDER BY, and MIN/MAX from order alone
Indexes are redundant	Every INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE must also update them — pure write cost
Indexes are left-anchored	A composite (a, b, c) can seek on a, a,b, a,b,c — never b or c alone

Keep both halves in mind at once: you are buying read speed with write speed and storage. The job is to buy only the indexes that pay for themselves.

1. B-tree basics

The default index type everywhere (CREATE INDEX builds a B-tree unless you ask otherwise) is a balanced tree whose leaf nodes hold sorted key values. Lookups are O(log n) — a few page reads even for billions of rows. Because the leaves are sorted and linked, a B-tree efficiently serves:

• Equality: WHERE status = 'open'
• Range: WHERE created_at > '2026-01-01', BETWEEN, <, >
• Sorted output: ORDER BY created_at with no separate sort step
• Prefix matches: WHERE email LIKE 'jay%' (but not '%jay' — a leading wildcard cannot seek)

It cannot help with operations that don't respect that ordering: WHERE lower(email) = ... (unless you index the expression), !=, or %suffix searches. Full mechanics, page splits, and why a low-cardinality boolean is a poor leading column are in references/btree-internals.md.

2. Composite indexes & the leftmost-prefix rule

A composite index (a, b, c) is sorted by a, then b within equal a, then c. This is the single most misunderstood part of indexing. The index can satisfy a predicate only as a left-anchored prefix:

-- Index: (tenant_id, status, created_at)
WHERE tenant_id = 9 AND status = 'open'                  -- uses (tenant_id, status)      ✓
WHERE tenant_id = 9 AND status = 'open' AND created_at>… -- uses all three                ✓
WHERE tenant_id = 9                                      -- uses (tenant_id)              ✓
WHERE status = 'open'                                    -- CANNOT seek (skips tenant_id) ✗
WHERE tenant_id = 9 AND created_at > …                   -- seeks tenant_id, filters rest ◑

Column ordering rule: equality columns first, then one range column, then columns needed only for sort. A range predicate (>, <, BETWEEN) "uses up" the index — columns after the range column can no longer be used for seeking, only as a filter. So (tenant_id, status, created_at) is right for tenant_id = ? AND status = ? AND created_at > ?, but putting created_at before status would waste the status equality. Full reasoning, plus covering indexes and index-only scans, in references/composite-and-covering.md.

3. Covering indexes & index-only scans

If an index contains every column a query touches (in SELECT, WHERE, and ORDER BY), the engine answers from the index alone and never visits the table heap — an index-only scan. This eliminates the random I/O of fetching rows and is often a 5–50x win on hot read paths.

-- Query reads only id, tenant_id, status:
SELECT id, status FROM orders WHERE tenant_id = 9 AND status = 'open';

-- Covering index (Postgres INCLUDE keeps non-key columns in the leaf):
CREATE INDEX ix_orders_cover ON orders (tenant_id, status) INCLUDE (id);

The trade-off: covering indexes are wider, so they cost more to write and store. Add them only for high-frequency queries you have measured. See examples/index-ddl.sql for INCLUDE vs composite forms.

4. Reading EXPLAIN / EXPLAIN ANALYZE

EXPLAIN shows the planner's chosen plan and estimated cost; EXPLAIN ANALYZE actually runs the query and reports real timings and row counts. Always tune against ANALYZE output. What to look for:

• Seq Scan on a large table under a selective WHERE — the prime candidate for an index.
• rows estimate vs actual wildly diverging — stale statistics; run ANALYZE <table>.
• Sort / Hash nodes with high cost — an ordered index may remove the sort.
• Index Scan vs Index Only Scan — the latter means your index is covering.
• Rows Removed by Filter — rows read then thrown away; a better index seeks past them.

EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
SELECT id FROM orders WHERE tenant_id = 9 AND created_at > now() - interval '7 days';

A full annotated walkthrough — before/after plans for the same query — is in examples/explain-walkthrough.sql and the node-by-node guide in references/reading-explain.md.

5. Selectivity & cardinality

Selectivity is the fraction of rows a predicate keeps; cardinality is the number of distinct values in a column. An index helps in proportion to its selectivity — seeking to 50 rows out of 10M is a huge win; seeking to 4M out of 10M is slower than a sequential scan, and the planner will (correctly) ignore the index. Rules of thumb:

• Lead a composite index with the most selective equality column the query actually filters on.
• A boolean or low-cardinality status column is a poor standalone index but fine deeper in a composite.
• Watch for skew: status = 'archived' (95% of rows) is unselective; status = 'pending' (0.1%) is highly selective. Partial indexes (WHERE status = 'pending') target exactly the selective slice.

Details and how the planner uses histograms: references/selectivity-and-cardinality.md.

6. The write-amplification cost — when NOT to add an index

Every index is extra work on every write to the table. Five indexes mean an INSERT does roughly six B-tree maintenance operations. This is write amplification, and it's the reason "just add an index" is not free advice.

Do NOT add an index when:

• The table is write-heavy and rarely read on that column (a log/append table).
• The column has very low cardinality and the query isn't selective (a 2-value flag on its own).
• A redundant index already covers the need — (a, b) makes a separate (a) index unnecessary, since the composite serves a-only seeks via the leftmost prefix. Drop the narrower one.
• The table is small (a few thousand rows); a sequential scan is already fast and the planner skips the index anyway.
• You haven't measured. Speculative indexes accumulate into pure write tax and bloat.

Common pitfalls (failure modes)

• Wrapping the indexed column in a function: WHERE date(created_at) = '2026-06-29' cannot use an index on created_at. Rewrite as a range, or build an expression index.
• Leading wildcard LIKE '%foo' — no prefix to seek; needs a trigram or full-text index instead.
• Wrong composite order — (created_at, tenant_id) for tenant_id = ? AND created_at > ? forces a scan; the equality column must lead. (See the leftmost-prefix rule above.)
• Type/collation mismatch — comparing a bigint column to a string literal, or a join across mismatched collations, silently disables the index.
• Redundant overlapping indexes — (a), (a, b), (a, b, c) where the widest alone suffices: pure write cost, no read benefit.
• Trusting EXPLAIN over EXPLAIN ANALYZE — estimates lie when statistics are stale; always verify with real timings, and ANALYZE the table after big data changes.
• OR across columns — WHERE a = 1 OR b = 2 often can't use a single composite; consider a UNION of two indexed seeks or separate indexes.

When NOT to use / trade-offs

Indexing is the wrong lever when the bottleneck is elsewhere: an N+1 query pattern needs batching, not an index; a query returning most of a table should be paginated and is already best served by a scan; and analytical scans over whole tables belong in a column store, not a B-tree. Reach for a different index type when B-tree can't help — GIN/trigram for substring and full-text search, GiST for geospatial, BRIN for naturally-ordered append-only data (huge time-series tables) where a tiny block-range index beats a full B-tree. And remember the meta-cost: every index slows writes and consumes storage and cache. On a write-dominated workload, fewer, well-chosen indexes beat many.

Pairs with database-scaling, data-modeling, and database-migrations (add indexes concurrently / online to avoid locking production tables during deploys).

Files in this package

• references/btree-internals.md — how B-trees store keys, page splits, what they can and can't serve
• references/composite-and-covering.md — leftmost-prefix rule, equality-before-range, covering/index-only scans
• references/reading-explain.md — node-by-node guide to EXPLAIN / EXPLAIN ANALYZE output
• references/selectivity-and-cardinality.md — selectivity math, histograms, partial indexes, skew
• examples/explain-walkthrough.sql — before/after query plans for the same query, annotated
• examples/index-ddl.sql — composite, covering (INCLUDE), partial, and expression index DDL
• scripts/suggest-index.mjs — proposes a composite index from a query's columns (equality-before-range + leftmost-prefix); run --selftest to verify