From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index non-usage problem in 8.2.9 |
Date: | 2008-09-02 23:14:57 |
Message-ID: | 7893.1220397297@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> writes:
> It seems that postgres can't figure out that it can use the index on
> sacode unless I put "d2.sacode > 0" in my where clause.
Works for me ...
regression=# create table d2(sgcode int, sacode int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create index d2i on d2 (sgcode, sacode) WHERE sacode IS NOT NULL AND sacode > 0;
CREATE INDEX
regression=# explain select count(*) from d2 where d2.sgcode = 156 AND d2.sacode IN(2,1);
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=8.54..8.55 rows=1 width=0)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on d2 (cost=4.52..8.54 rows=1 width=0)
Recheck Cond: ((sgcode = 156) AND (sacode = ANY ('{2,1}'::integer[])))
-> Bitmap Index Scan on d2i (cost=0.00..4.52 rows=1 width=0)
Index Cond: ((sgcode = 156) AND (sacode = ANY ('{2,1}'::integer[])))
(5 rows)
You sure the server is 8.2.9? Awhile ago there were some bug fixes
around the handling of IS NULL/IS NOT NULL in predicates.
One thought is that the IS NOT NULL is really redundant, since it's
implied by the sacode > 0 test anyway. Does it work better if you
make the index just "WHERE sacode > 0" ?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-02 23:22:31 | Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted? |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-09-02 23:14:32 | Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted? |