Re: [HACKERS] Use of Indicies ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of Indicies ...
Date: 2000-01-24 05:58:38
Message-ID: 14946.948693518@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> There is an index on all three conditions in the WHERE clause:
> Yet EXPLAIN shows:
> Aggregate (cost=2.05 rows=1 width=4)
-> Index Scan using referrer_link_counter_id on referrer_link (cost=2.05 rows=1 width=4)

> Why does EXPLAIN only show the use of one of the indices, why counter_id
> and why not all three?

Indexscans only know how to use one index at a time.

The optimizer picked the counter_id index out of the three available
choices because it thought that would be the cheapest (most selective)
alternative --- or, if the computed selectivities were all the same,
just because it happened to try that one first.

Do you have reason to think that one of the other indexes would have
been cheaper?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Bitmead 2000-01-24 07:26:17 TOAST suggestion...
Previous Message Chris Bitmead 2000-01-24 05:56:37 Re: ORDBMS<->OID (Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping)