From: | "John Jawed" <johnjawed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Difference between UNIQUE constraint vs index |
Date: | 2007-02-28 17:25:03 |
Message-ID: | a9eb35850702280925m480ae030n85754275860fefa1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Informix:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/idshelp/v10/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.sqls.doc/sqls285.htm
AFAICS, Oracle as well.
John
On 2/28/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > In some databases if you know that an index just happens to be unique
> > you might gain some query performance by defining the index as unique,
> > but I don't think the PostgreSQL planner is that smart.
>
> Actually, the planner only pays attention to whether indexes are unique;
> the notion of a unique constraint is outside its bounds. In PG a unique
> constraint is implemented by creating a unique index, and so there is
> really not any interesting difference.
>
> I would imagine that other DBMSes also enforce uniqueness by means of
> indexes, because it'd be awful darn expensive to enforce the constraint
> without one; but I'm only guessing here, not having looked. Can anyone
> point to a real system that enforces unique constraints without an
> underlying index?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-02-28 17:53:25 | Re: SQL names for C constants |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-28 17:22:58 | Re: How often do I need to reindex tables? |