On Wed, 23 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> indexRelation->rd_am->amsupport, cf. InitIndexStrategy.
> > In third example with multi-key index we
> > forced to use 'with (islossy)' for all index even if select will
> > use index by first attribute (b gist_box_ops) which is a not right
> > thing.
> islossy is a per-index attribute, not a per-column attribute. I don't
> think it makes sense to define it any other way. If any one of the
> columns is stored in a lossy fashion, then the index is lossy.
Not always. If we have multi-key index and only 2nd column requires lossy
why do we need to check lossiness if select only 1st column ?
It's not a high priority, but some optimization would be fine.
> regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Peter Kelly||Date: 2001-05-25 12:42:02|
|Subject: DATE_PART() BUG?|
|Previous:||From: Alexander Zagrebin||Date: 2001-05-24 09:13:27|
|Subject: RE: bug in plpgsql??? |