| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yves Dorfsman <yves(at)zioup(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: extract(year from date) doesn't use index but maybe could? |
| Date: | 2015-04-19 22:29:54 |
| Message-ID: | 6398.1429482594@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Yves Dorfsman <yves(at)zioup(dot)com> writes:
> What about functions that are simpler such as upper()/lower()?
If you think those are simpler, you're much mistaken :-(. For instance,
"lower(first_name) = 'yves'" would have to be translated to something
like "first_name IN ('yves', 'yveS', 'yvEs', 'yvES', ..., 'YVES')"
-- 16 possibilities altogether, or 2^N for an N-character string.
(And that's just assuming ASCII up/down-casing, never mind the interesting
rules in some non-English languages.) In a case-sensitive index, those
various strings aren't going to sort consecutively, so we'd end up needing
a separate index probe for each possibility.
extract(year from date) agrees with timestamp comparison up to boundary
cases, that is a few hours either way at a year boundary depending on the
timezone situation. So you could translate it to a lossy-but-indexable
timestamp comparison condition and not expect to scan too many index items
that don't satisfy the original extract() condition. But I don't see how
to make something like that work for mapping case-insensitive searches
onto case-sensitive indexes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2015-04-20 00:13:12 | Re: extract(year from date) doesn't use index but maybe could? |
| Previous Message | Yves Dorfsman | 2015-04-19 22:05:14 | Re: extract(year from date) doesn't use index but maybe could? |