From: | T E Schmitz <mailreg(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ORDER BY and NULLs |
Date: | 2004-09-19 17:18:37 |
Message-ID: | 414DBF6D.8040500@numerixtechnology.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Hello Tom,
Tom Lane wrote:
> T E Schmitz <mailreg(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de> writes:
>
>>I read somewhere that an Index is not
>>going to improve the performance of an ORDER BY if the sort column
>>contains NULLs because NULLs aren't indexed?
>
> Whatever you were reading had it pretty badly garbled :-(
I just dug out the PostgreSQL book again because I thought I might've
garbled it:
Quote: "PostgreSQL will not index NULL values. Because an index will
never include NULL values, it cannot be used to satisfy the ORDER BY
clause of a query that returns all rows in a table."
> Btree indexes *do* store nulls, so the presence of nulls doesn't affect
Thank you for your explanations. At the moment the table has only 1300
entries and any query is responsive. I'm just planning ahead...
--
Regards/Gruß,
Tarlika Elisabeth Schmitz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-09-19 18:37:11 | Re: ORDER BY and NULLs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-19 17:12:07 | Re: How to check postgres running or not ? |