| From: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Doug Reynolds <mav(at)wastegate(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checking for a NULL date in a partitioned table kills performance |
| Date: | 2024-08-23 16:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | 9EE69544-3ADC-4882-89E8-3205278FEFC3@elevated-dev.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
> On Aug 23, 2024, at 9:42 AM, Doug Reynolds <mav(at)wastegate(dot)net> wrote:
>
> The only difference is that you would be reading from one index instead of two, which could be more efficient.
Ah yes, that's a good point to take into consideration in such a case.
In the one at hand though, if statistics are correct, neither index is going to be used, given the 90% of rows with NULL values. Using an index would just waste time compared to a simple sequential scan.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Milhiser | 2024-08-23 19:24:50 | Is index deduplication active on an index |
| Previous Message | Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) | 2024-08-23 15:49:27 | Re: checking for a NULL date in a partitioned table kills performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-08-27 06:15:42 | Re: proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) | 2024-08-23 15:49:27 | Re: checking for a NULL date in a partitioned table kills performance |