From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Indexing null dates |
Date: | 2004-04-20 04:25:33 |
Message-ID: | 200404200425.i3K4PX507858@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > + <literal>NULL</> values are not indexed by default.
>
> This is quite incorrect. The nulls *are* indexed (at least in btree
> indexes); the issue is whether there is any way to use the index to
> search for them. I do not think it helps anyone for the documentation
> to get this basic point wrong, even if the distinction is subtle.
OK, docs updated with:
Indexes can not be used with <literal>IS NULL</> clauses by default.
The best way to use indexes in such cases is to create a partial index
using an <literal>IS NULL</> comparison.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-20 04:41:44 | Re: [OT] Tom's/Marc's spam filters? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-04-20 04:19:05 | Re: [OT] Tom's/Marc's spam filters? |