| From: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres 9.0 has a bias against indexes |
| Date: | 2011-01-27 20:44:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4D41D91A.3010308@vmsinfo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 1/27/2011 3:37 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Mladen Gogala
> <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> wrote:
>> There is INDEX UNIQUE SCAN PK_EMP. Oracle will use an index.
> That's because Oracle has covering indexes.
>
I am not sure what you mean by "covering indexes" but I hope that for
the larger table I have in mind, indexes will be used. For a small
table like this, not using an index may actually be a better plan. I
cannot compare because my development PostgreSQL cluster is on a much
weaker machine than the development Oracle database.
I even looked into Wikipedia for the notion of "covering index" and it
is defined as an index which contains all the data requested in a query.
This is not the case, EMP is not an index-organized table. The only
index used was the primary key, also available in the PostgreSQL version
of the table.
--
Mladen Gogala
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
www.vmsinfo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-01-27 20:59:15 | Re: Postgres 9.0 has a bias against indexes |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-01-27 20:37:22 | Re: Postgres 9.0 has a bias against indexes |