| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index on a NULL-value |
| Date: | 2005-05-31 05:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | 8324.1117516366@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> then it would be a candidate because the ORDER BY or the other > 0 make the
> index look relevant. But I don't think (again I'm not 100% sure) that the
> partial index WHERE clause is considered in picking which indexes to consider.
Nope, the partial index will be considered simply on the strength of its
predicate matching the WHERE clause.
Of course, if you can get some additional mileage by having the index
contents be useful, that's great --- but it's not necessary.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tobias Brox | 2005-05-31 05:59:32 | Re: Index on a NULL-value |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-05-31 04:21:25 | Re: Index on a NULL-value |