| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mailreg(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Join Table |
| Date: | 2004-11-01 17:07:38 |
| Message-ID: | 14976.1099328858@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
T E Schmitz <mailreg(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de> writes:
> CREATE TABLE SUPPLY
> (
> ITEM_FK integer NOT NULL,
> CONTACT_FK integer NOT NULL,
> COST numeric (7,2),
> PRIMARY KEY (ITEM_FK,CONTACT_FK)
> );
> Question: is it necessary/advisable to create an index for the ITEM_FK
> column? Or is this redundantbecause this column is already one of the PK
> columns?
The PK index will be usable for searches on ITEM_FK alone (though *not*
for searches on CONTACT_FK alone --- a moment's thought about the index
sort order should convince you why). It would be marginally less
efficient for this purpose than a dedicated index on ITEM_FK. But unless
your use of this table is almost all searches and hardly any
modifications, adding a dedicated index is probably a net loss due to
the added update costs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-11-01 17:08:51 | Re: Join Table |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2004-11-01 17:03:24 | Re: Join Table |