From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "A(dot) Kretschmer" <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using more tha one index per table |
Date: | 2010-07-21 08:03:28 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilGwVkxsvBoPlJ4h25QrC4z7pqvBCMBqB_-ef5y@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:53 AM, A. Kretschmer
> <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> In response to Elias Ghanem :
>> > Hi,
>> > I have a question concerning the uses of indexes in Postgresql.
>> > I red that in PG a query can not use more than one index per table: "a
>> > query or
>> > data manipulation command can use at most one index per table".
>>
>> That's not true, but it's true for MySQL, afaik.
>>
>
> That is not true either, though MySQL is less good at using bitmap'ed
> indexes. 5.0 can use "merge indexes",
Yeah, the biggest problem MySQL has is that it's got a pretty
simplistic query planner so it often makes poor choices.
Note that PostgreSQL on the other hand, has a much smarter query
planner. So it usually makes better choices. But when it makes a
wrong one, it can be a doozie. Luckily, reported strange behavior in
the query planner is usually fixed pretty quickly.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc Cousin | 2010-07-21 12:41:17 | error in oracle to plpgsql documentation ? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-07-21 08:01:00 | Re: Using more tha one index per table |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | stanimir petrov | 2010-07-21 12:42:04 | tune memory usage for master/slave nodes in cluster |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-07-21 08:01:00 | Re: Using more tha one index per table |