From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multi-column index: Which column order |
Date: | 2023-02-16 10:22:12 |
Message-ID: | 94894e20a8e9d2b7fad6d70b55854a1978d70815.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 22:08 -0600, Ron wrote:
> On 2/15/23 21:45, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 10:20 -0600, Ron wrote:
> > > On 2/15/23 02:46, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > > Both are the same.
> > > > There is an old myth that says that you should use the more selective column first
> > > > (which would be "code"), but that is just a myth.
> > >
> > > Only on Postgresql?
> >
> > No, on all relational databases that use B-tree indexes.
>
> Not only is "all" is a very absolute word (I know of a counter-example), but
> querying on the second segment means that you have to scan the whole tree
> instead of isolating one sub-branch.
The question was about a multi-column index where all columns are compared
with "equal" in the WHERE condition. For other cases, order matters.
I am aware of the danger of absolute claims, but as far as I can tell, this
is in the nature of B-tree indexes.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2023-02-16 13:15:28 | RE: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Previous Message | Simon Elbaz | 2023-02-16 09:58:56 | Aggressive vacuum frequency on a table |