From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Reinoud van Leeuwen <reinoud(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: optimizer question |
Date: | 2001-10-12 17:14:38 |
Message-ID: | 27219.1002906878@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Maybe rather
> * Use indexes for min() and max() or convert to "SELECT col FROM tab
> ORDER BY col DESC USING max_index_op LIMIT 1" if there is an index
> on tab that uses btree(col max_index_op)
> it seems that in most other cases the rewrite would be either a
> misoptimisation or plain wrong.
We would clearly need to add information to the system catalogs to allow
the planner to determine whether a given aggregate matches up to a given
index opclass. This has been discussed before.
A more interesting question is how to determine whether such a rewrite
would be a win. That is NOT a foregone conclusion. Consider
SELECT max(col1) FROM tab WHERE col2 BETWEEN 12 AND 42;
Depending on the selectivity of the WHERE condition, we might be far
better off to scan on a col2 index and use our traditional max()
code than to scan on a col1 index until we find a row passing the
WHERE condition. I'm not sure whether the planner currently has
statistics appropriate for such estimates or not ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-12 17:18:49 | Re: ecpg - GRANT bug |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-10-12 16:47:41 | SQL99 time zones |