| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |