Re: best way to fetch next/prev record based on index

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: best way to fetch next/prev record based on index
Date: 2004-07-27 15:29:53
Message-ID: 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB34101AEFA@Herge.rcsinc.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> > select * from t where
> > a >= a1 and
> > (a > a1 or b >= b1) and
> > (a > a1 or b > b1 or c > c1)
>
> > In about 95% of cases, the planner correctly selects the index
t(a,b,c)
> > and uses it.
>
> I'm surprised it's that good. Why not do

It is. In fact, it's so good, I mistakenly assumed it would get it
right all the time. That led me directly to my current situation.

> select * from t where a >= a1 and b >= b1 and c >= c1
> order by a,b,c
> limit 1 offset 1;
Note: I left off the limit/order part of the query in my original
example.

My previous experience with offset was that it's not practical for this
type of use. Query time degrades when offset gets large...it's
basically n^2/2 for a scan of a table. If offset was pumped up to O(1)
for any sized offset, the problem would be trivial.

Plus, your where clause does not guarantee results.

Imagine:
a b c
2 3 4
4 2 1

c !> c1

The only other way to rewrite the query is thus (pg has much more
trouble with this form):
select * from t where
a > a1 or
(a >= a1 and b > b1) or
(a >= a1 and b >= b1 and c > c1)

Merlin

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-07-27 15:33:19 Re: best way to fetch next/prev record based on index
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-27 15:14:01 Re: best way to fetch next/prev record based on index