From: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "drum(dot)lucas(at)gmail(dot)com" <drum(dot)lucas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: index question |
Date: | 2016-05-01 22:39:49 |
Message-ID: | CANu8Fiw+c6AzOZjuCSWLr8S9kQ2prEP4ucMicmdrjaG4QD2owQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 6:31 PM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Your index is based on split_part function
>> but the WHERE clause is specific to full_path, so the planner cannot find
>> a valid index
>>
>>
>
>
> David J.
>
>This sentence is even less useful than the questions that you asked...
Your comments are antagonistic at best, but perhaps you should take a
course in english.
To clarify, the index is based on a function called "split_part(....)
The WHERE clause is only referencing the full_part column, so the planner
cannot associate the index with the full_part column.
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | drum.lucas@gmail.com | 2016-05-02 01:18:13 | Re: index question |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-05-01 22:31:22 | Re: index question |