Re: Query planner question

From: Ernest E Vogelsinger <ernest(at)vogelsinger(dot)at>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query planner question
Date: 2003-06-12 23:55:42
Message-ID: 5.1.1.6.2.20030613015151.03b21068@mail.vogelsinger.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

At 23:56 12.06.2003, Stephan Szabo said:
--------------------[snip]--------------------
>I think that it doesn't entirely know that owid=1, sort by dcid, dsid,
>drid can be handled by that index. I think it's possible that if you
>added owid to the select list it might use id_dowid instead. I think this
>is similar to the issues with order by, conditions and index choice, which
>you may find useful information in the archives about)

Nope, still uses the wrong index, but as I said to Dimitry that's my least
problem ;-)

>> 2) Why is NO index used for the second query, the only difference being in
>> the constraint value (owid is set vs. owid is null)?
>
>IS NULL is not considered an indexable condition currently (there are past
>discussions and hackarounds in the archives)

Hmm - I'm not into hackarounds on a production server, really. I'll rather
modify the approach the application takes.

>> 3) Why does it use id_dictid for the second query when forced to, and not
>> id_owid or id_dowid?
>
>As for #2, it doesn't think it can use an index with owid in the front.

Makes perfectly sense since nulls can't be indexed *sigh*

Anyone know why this decision has been taken?

Thanks for your insight, guys :)

--
>O Ernest E. Vogelsinger
(\) ICQ #13394035
^ http://www.vogelsinger.at/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Tkach 2003-06-13 00:12:30 Re: Query planner question
Previous Message Ernest E Vogelsinger 2003-06-12 23:51:46 Re: Query planner question