Re: order by and index path

From: Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
To: "'Jan Wieck'" <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com>
Cc: "hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: order by and index path
Date: 1998-10-15 08:56:50
Message-ID: 01BDF82A.C7968FD0@zeugswettera.user.lan.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan wrote:
> If there is an ORDER BY clause, using an index scan is the
> clever way if the indexqual dramatically reduces the the
> amount of data selected and sorted. I think this is the
> normal case

yes

> (who really selects nearly all rows from a 5M row
> table?).

Data Warehouse apps

> This will hurt if someone really selects most of the rows and the index
> scan jumps over the disc.

I think this is a non issue, since if a qual is not restrictive enough,
the optimizer should choose a seq scan anyway. Doesn' t it do this already ?

> But here the programmer should use
> an unqualified query to perform a seqscan and do the
> qualification in the frontend application.

I would reformulate this to:
Here the backend should do a seq scan and use the qualification to eliminate
not wanted rows.

Resumee:
You have to look at this from the cost point of view. If there is an order by that can be
done with an index, this will make the index a little more preferrable than for the same
query without the order by, but it should not force the index.
You have to give the sort a cost, so that the index access can be compared to the
seq scan and sort path.

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 1998-10-15 09:56:50 Re: [HACKERS] postmaster locking issues.
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 1998-10-15 08:39:07 PostgreSQL v6.4 BETA2...