From: | S Dawalt <shane(dot)dawalt(at)wright(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Creating tons of tables to support a query |
Date: | 2002-09-09 15:13:01 |
Message-ID: | 00b801c25813$63d8a300$82f96c82@HP0E2E6GKYFJS4 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephan Szabo said:
>
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jan Ploski wrote:
>
> > I am in particular wondering, why an index on message(sectionID,
dateSent)
> > does not make these queries comparably fast:
> >
> > select msgnum from message where
> > sectionID = ? and
> > dateSent > ?
> > order by dateSent
> > limit 1;
>
> I don't think that'll use an index on (sectionID, dateSent) for the sort
> step. I think an index on (dateSent,sectionID) might be, however.
>
I know I've read this before on the list (probably several times). But
either my skull is too thick or the topic too abstract; why is no index used
for (sectionID, dateSent) but (dateSent, sectionID) does? They are the same
columns, but just reversed. I don't see why that would make a difference.
Is there some rule-of-thumb for determining when an index is used and when
it isn't rather than trail and error using EXPLAIN?
Shane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mourad Dhambri | 2002-09-09 15:24:30 | pg_hba |
Previous Message | Christoph Dalitz | 2002-09-09 15:12:30 | Re: recommended books??? |