From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: strange explain |
Date: | 2002-05-13 14:04:50 |
Message-ID: | 29086.1021298690@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> tour=# explain analyze select * from tours where
> ( operator_id in (2,3,4,5,7) and type_id = 2 ) or
> ( operator_id = 8 and type_id=4 );
> Index Scan using type_idx, type_idx, type_idx, type_idx, type_idx, type_idx on tours (cost=0.00..12.25 rows=1 width=1091) (actual time=0.26..0.26 rows=0 loops=1)
> What does many 'type_idx' means ?
Multiple indexscans.
It looks to me like your WHERE clause is being flattened into
( operator_id = 2 and type_id=2 ) or
( operator_id = 3 and type_id=2 ) or
( operator_id = 4 and type_id=2 ) or
( operator_id = 5 and type_id=2 ) or
( operator_id = 7 and type_id=2 ) or
( operator_id = 8 and type_id=4 )
and then it has a choice of repeated indexscans on operator_id or
type_id. Depending on the selectivity stats it might pick either.
You might find that a 2-column index on both would be a win.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-05-13 14:11:21 | Re: Join of small table with large table |
Previous Message | Jason Tishler | 2002-05-13 13:59:04 | Re: Native Win32, How about this? |