Re: how to enforce index usage with +0

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: how to enforce index usage with +0
Date: 2007-06-13 20:56:33
Message-ID: 20070613205633.GB1505@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:32:55AM -0700, Timasmith wrote:
> select s.order_id
> from small_orders_table s, orders o
> where s.find_these_id in
> (select some_id from some_table where some_indexed_field = 'ABC')
> and s.order_id+0 = o.order_id
> and date_trunc('microseconds', o.valid_until_dt) < now()
>
> This should essentially use the s.some_indexed_field as the primary
> index and hit the orders table on the order id.

It will do this automatically if the selectivity of your
some_indexed_field values leans that way. I think you're probably
trying to outsmart the planner/optimiser here, and that's _usually_
not a good idea. IT shouldn't make any difference whether you add
that +0 or not, assuming the database is tuned correctly.

I'd be rather more worried about the date_trunc stuff. You probably
want a functional index on there.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Johnson 2007-06-13 21:00:19 Re: pointer to feature comparisons, please
Previous Message Johannes Konert 2007-06-13 20:22:01 Re: pg_xlog - files are guaranteed to be sequentialy named?