From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk |
Cc: | CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: selecting rows older than X, ensuring index is used |
Date: | 2005-08-21 01:28:33 |
Message-ID: | 18673.1124587713@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 15:33 -0700, CSN wrote:
>> select * from table1
>> where last_error is null
>> or extract(epoch from now()-last_error) > 86400;
> I don't know whether the planner would recognise that it could use an
> index on that condition.
The "is null" isn't indexable, and an OR with a nonindexable condition
kills the entire point of considering an indexscan. (If you have to do
a seqscan anyway, there's no point in doing an indexscan too.)
You could probably make it work if you created a partial index with the
condition "last_error IS NULL"; then the planner could combine an
indexscan on that with an indexscan on a regular last_error index
(given refactoring of the other condition as Oliver recommends).
> The estimate is that nearly half of those 550 rows will be returned, so
> a sequential scan would probably be chosen in any case.
Yeah. Unless it's going to be a lot more selective than that, the
indexscan approach will be a loser anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Clodoaldo Pinto | 2005-08-21 01:41:36 | Re: extract (dow/week from date) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-21 01:03:32 | Re: extract (dow/week from date) |