On 06/28/2005 01:40:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Karl O. Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> writes:
> > I have a query
> > select 1
> > from census
> > where date < '1975-9-21' and sname = 'RAD' and status != 'A'
> > limit 1;
> > Explain analyze says it always uses the index made by:
> > CREATE INDEX census_date_sname ON census (date, sname);
> > this is even after I made the index:
> > CREATE INDEX census_sname_date ON census (sname, date);
> I don't believe that any existing release can tell the difference
> between these two indexes as far as costs go. I just recently
> added some code to btcostestimate that would cause it to prefer
> the index on (sname, date) but of course that's not released yet.
> However: isn't the above query pretty seriously underspecified?
> With a LIMIT and no ORDER BY, you are asking for a random one
> of the rows matching the condition. I realize that with
> "select 1" you may not care much, but adding a suitable ORDER BY
> would help push the planner towards using the right index. In
> this case "ORDER BY sname DESC, date DESC" would probably do the
Yes, that works. I'd already tried "ORDER BY date DESC", before
I first wrote, and that did not work. (I started with no LIMIT
either, and tried adding specifications until I gave up. It's
very good that the new planner will figure out things by itself.)
"ORDER BY sname DESC" works as well. This is a
bit odd, as with the constant in the = comparison "ORDER BY date
DESC" is the same as "ORDER BY sname DESC, date DESC".
I guess that's why I gave up on my attempts to get the planner
to use the (sname, date) index before I got to your solution.
Thanks everybody for the help.
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Michael Stone||Date: 2005-06-28 17:27:01|
|Subject: Re: read block size|
|Previous:||From: PFC||Date: 2005-06-28 17:10:05|
|Subject: Re: Too slow querying a table of 15 million records|