Re: Selectivity of "=" (Re: [HACKERS] Index not used on simple select)

> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> It turns out that the selectivity estimate for an "=" comparison is
> just
> > the attdisbursion statistic calculated by VACUUM ANALYZE, which can be
> > roughly defined as the frequency of the most common value in the column.
> > (I took statistics too long ago to recall the exact definition.)
> > Anyway, given that the test data Ole sent me contains nearly all ''
> > entries, I'd say that the 0.995 value is about right for disbursion.
> >
> > Indeed, if one were to do a "select * from av_parts where nsn = ''",
> > then sequential scan would be the most efficient way to do that.
> > The system has no clue that that's not really something you'd do much.
>
> Does the system currently index NULLs as well ?
>
> I suspect supporting partial indexes (initially just non-NULLs) would
> let us have much better and also use indexes intelligently for
> mostly-NULL
> columns.
>
> Perhaps a line like
>
> * Add partial index support
>
> would fit in TODO
>
> -----------------
> Hannu
>
>

Yes, I think we index nulls. What are partial indexes?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026