From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Daniel Kalchev" <daniel(at)digsys(dot)bg>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: again on index usage |
Date: | 2002-01-15 20:50:04 |
Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJEELLGHAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Inoue
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Kalchev
> >
> > I tried this:
> >
> > db=# explain
> > db-# SELECT sum(input), sum(output) FROM iplog_test
>
> > db-# WHERE
> > db-# '2001-12-01 00:00:00+02' <= ipdate AND ipdate < '2001-12-02
> > 00:00:00+02'
>
> Is there only one ipdate value which satisfies the above where clause ?
If '2001-12-01 00:00:00+02' is the unique ipdate value which satsifies
'2001-12-01 00:00:00+02' <= ipdate AND ipdate < '2001-12-02 00:00:00+02'
and CREATE INDEX preserves the physical order of the same key,
the IndexScan would see physically ordered tuples. There's no strangeness
even if the scan is faster than sequential scan.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-01-15 21:24:31 | Re: FATAL 1: Relation 'pg_shadow' does not exist |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-01-15 20:49:50 | Re: Theory about XLogFlush startup failures |