From: | Harald Fuchs <hf0722x(at)protecting(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: integer[] indexing. |
Date: | 2004-10-08 12:28:52 |
Message-ID: | puhdp5mm0r.fsf@srv.protecting.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
In article <opsfjonlc0cq72hf(at)musicbox>,
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Pierre-Fr=E9d=E9ric_Caillaud?= <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> writes:
> disclaimer : brainless proposition
> (SELECT * FROM table WHERE (icount(ids) <= 1 AND ids[1] = 33)
> UNION ALL
> (SELECT * FROM table WHERE (icount(ids) > 1 AND ids && '{33}'));
I guess my proposition is even more brainless :-)
If 95% of all records have only one value, how about putting the first
(and most often only) value into a separate column with a btree index
on it? Something like that:
CREATE TABLE tbl (
-- other columns
id1 INT NOT NULL,
idN INT[] NULL
);
CREATE INDEX tbl_id1_ix ON tbl (id1);
If id1 is selective enough, you probably don't need another index on idn.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | simon | 2004-10-08 12:38:01 | Re: Re: Data warehousing requirements |
Previous Message | Mike Harding | 2004-10-08 12:10:29 | COPY slows down? |