From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pg_general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Partial indices... |
Date: | 2003-10-11 17:11:59 |
Message-ID: | 27300.1065892319@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> That's very strange.
Not really. In the dummy example, the two indexes are exactly the same
size and so there is no reason for the planner to prefer one over the
other. (Note that the two plans have exactly the same estimated cost.)
In a real example, with appropriate statistics from VACUUM or ANALYZE,
the planner would tend to prefer the smaller index.
If we had code to suppress the extra evaluation of the partial-index
condition (which we do not) then possibly the planner would be able
to favor the partial index on the grounds of less computation per row.
I don't see any simple way to suppress those clauses early enough to
let that cost difference figure into planning, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Creager | 2003-10-12 16:08:10 | create temp table ... inherits |
Previous Message | Igor Shevchenko | 2003-10-11 11:38:22 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-10-11 18:21:43 | Re: Procedure for adding a column |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-11 16:54:00 | Re: log_duration and \timing times repeatably much higher than "Total runtime" from explain analyze |