| From: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pg-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Useless index |
| Date: | 2002-02-14 16:40:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3C6BE867.3635E176@nsd.ca |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Here is another peeve
Having to specify the type of a constant in a SELECT DISTINCT 'foo'...
I which I had more spare time to contribute...
Jean-Luc
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > In fact, I am unsure why you are specifying the primary column in the
> > ORDER BY anyway if you know it will be a single value, except perhaps to
> > try and get it to use the index, right?
>
> Exactly. The sort ordering of the index is (col1,col2) while the
> query as originally written wanted an ordering of (col2 desc).
> The planner's not smart enough to realize that since the WHERE
> constrains col1 to a single value, you could pretend the query
> requests an ordering of (col1 desc, col2 desc) which is compatible
> with the index.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-14 16:52:37 | Re: Useless index |
| Previous Message | Brian McCane | 2002-02-14 16:19:22 | Re: Useless index |