From: | Martin Sarsale <martin(at)emepe3(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: seqscan instead of index scan |
Date: | 2004-08-31 15:14:37 |
Message-ID: | 1093965277.1680.93.camel@kadaif |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Using a functional index you can define an index around the way you
> access the data. There is no faster or better way to do it...this is a
> mathematical truth, not a problem with the planner. Why not use the
> right tool for the job? A boolean index is super-efficient both in disk
> space and cache utilization.
Thanks for your constructive criticism, you're absolutely right.
I had to modify your "return" for a "select":
create function rankeable (bigint, bigint) returns boolean as '
select case when $1 > 0 or $2 > 0 then true else false end;'
language sql immutable;
and it works great.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Max Reymond | 2004-08-31 15:27:41 | Performance with Intel Compiler |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-08-31 06:00:22 | Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index? |