From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | mailreg(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ORDER BY and NULLs |
Date: | 2004-09-19 19:00:08 |
Message-ID: | 20623.1095620408@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
T E Schmitz <mailreg(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Whatever you were reading had it pretty badly garbled :-(
> I just dug out the PostgreSQL book again because I thought I might've
> garbled it:
> Quote: "PostgreSQL will not index NULL values. Because an index will
> never include NULL values, it cannot be used to satisfy the ORDER BY
> clause of a query that returns all rows in a table."
[ shrug ] It's wrong on both counts, and has been since (checks CVS) 1997.
What book is that anyway?
There is a related statement that is still true: "WHERE x IS NULL"
(or NOT NULL) clauses are not indexscannable. This is a shortcoming of
the planner-to-index-access-method interface, though, not a question of
whether the index can store NULLs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | T E Schmitz | 2004-09-19 20:22:23 | Re: ORDER BY and NULLs |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-09-19 18:37:11 | Re: ORDER BY and NULLs |