Re: index problems (again)

From: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: index problems (again)
Date: 2016-03-07 21:23:36
Message-ID: CAEzk6fc+RW0p83ubKWnD=uH309TK0MNQu9cqQrQwCnM5S=58hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 7 March 2016 at 20:23, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> PostgreSQL does not (yet) implement "loose" index scans or "skip
> scans", which is what you are asking for. You can roll your own using
> the techniques described here:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Loose_indexscan, which has the
> benefit over your example code in that you don't need to enumerate all
> possible values, it effectively does it for you.

Uh huh. This is obviously where my expectation is wrong, thanks. It
certainly makes it more obvious why (sc_id,scdate) is more attractive
to the planner than (scdate,sc_id) and why the index that was
transferred from the Other Database that we've migrated from isn't
useful here :)

Geoff

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Bennett 2016-03-07 23:27:14 Re: Does a call to a language handler provide a context/session, and somewhere to keep session data?
Previous Message Peter J. Holzer 2016-03-07 20:40:22 Re: index problems (again)