| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'raines(at)SLAC(dot)Stanford(dot)EDU' |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: Let's talk up 6.3 |
| Date: | 1998-03-31 07:21:13 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C6010A5241@sdexcsrv1.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>
>> > Would a rule be that
>> > if the first attribute of an index is unique, then additional
>> > attributes are basically useless?
>>
>> For PostgreSQL this is currently true, since indexes are
currently not
>> used for order by. If you have a unique first column in an index,
>> then all following columns could only be used for sorting,
>> not for faster access (access actually gets worse).
>
>Sorry, don't follow this logic. He is not restricting on the first
>field of the index, so the index is not used.
Ooops, I did not look at that, I just took the sentence standalone,
and under the presumption that the first field of the index is in the where
restriction.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ | 1998-03-31 07:48:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Let's talk up 6.3 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-03-31 04:34:33 | rename manual page |