| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept |
| Date: | 2004-03-25 02:01:40 |
| Message-ID: | 40623D84.1000504@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I was thinking along the kind of missing index Tom was arguing about
> for RI checks, that may be helped if an appropriate index is available.
>
> I'm not sure what could be done, even with the query, in the general case.
> How to guess what index would help make a better plan? It depends
> on the optimiser itself, on what kind of indexes could be built, and so
> on. That's more human expect work than tool work.
Also, if they have a partial index on the FK, it's not good enough! In
CVS, IS NOT NULL partial indexes should be used, but in general all
others still won't...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-25 02:02:34 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-25 01:59:26 | Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept |