| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | gdavis(at)refractions(dot)net |
| Cc: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #2658: Query not using index |
| Date: | 2006-10-03 20:48:09 |
| Message-ID: | 10941.1159908489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-performance |
Graham Davis <gdavis(at)refractions(dot)net> writes:
> How come an aggreate like that has to use a sequential scan? I know
> that PostgreSQL use to have to do a sequential scan for all aggregates,
> but there was support added to version 8 so that aggregates would take
> advantage of indexes.
Not in a GROUP BY context, only for the simple case. Per the comment in
planagg.c:
* We don't handle GROUP BY, because our current implementations of
* grouping require looking at all the rows anyway, and so there's not
* much point in optimizing MIN/MAX.
The problem is that using an index to obtain the maximum value of ts for
a given value of assetid is not the same thing as finding out what all
the distinct values of assetid are.
This could possibly be improved but it would take a considerable amount
more work. It's definitely not in the category of "bug fix".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-10-03 20:48:11 | Re: BUG #2658: Query not using index |
| Previous Message | Bob Friesenhahn | 2006-10-03 20:43:18 | BUG #2674: libedit not detected |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-10-03 20:48:11 | Re: BUG #2658: Query not using index |
| Previous Message | Graham Davis | 2006-10-03 20:32:24 | Re: BUG #2658: Query not using index |