From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unused index influencing sequential scan plan |
Date: | 2012-10-18 17:01:51 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv4KPfZ5YFFXindPomwQh8q9YcchDVdQQMkR8x2yMgBR-A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 18 October 2012 18:00, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 18 October 2012 17:52, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I forgot to mention that there is a klugy workaround: add the required
>> variable(s) as extra index columns. That is,
>>
>> create index i on t (foo(x), x);
>
> Is there a case to be made for a index access method whose
> pseudo-indexes costs essentially nothing to maintain, and simply
> represent an ongoing obligation for ANALYZE to provide statistics for
> an expression?
Heh, that's pretty much the question I posted just a few seconds ago.
--
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-18 17:06:32 | Re: Unused index influencing sequential scan plan |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-10-18 17:01:05 | Re: Unused index influencing sequential scan plan |