| From: | Jimmy Mäkelä <jimmy(dot)makela(at)agent25(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tomasz Myrta' <jasiek(at)klaster(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unique indexes not unique? |
| Date: | 2003-01-13 10:56:09 |
| Message-ID: | D1045567F50DD311AB1B00508B3188E9026546D9@RINGHALS |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
From: Tomasz Myrta [mailto:jasiek(at)klaster(dot)net]
> I'm not sure unique index works properly for null values. I can't
> explain, why. Maybe it comes from SQL standard - null i a
> special value
Yeah, I thought about that too, but I think that behaviour is really bad and
would consider it a bug. There are good reasons for having a special SQL null,
but
none of these apply to unique indexes (not that I can think of anyway).
> Try to rewrite your query to show postgres how to use index on AB:
> SELECT * FROM "table"
> WHERE
> (a = 1 AND b > 1232132 AND b < 123123123213123) or
> (a = 2 AND b > 1232132 AND b < 123123123213123) or
> (a = 3 AND b > 1232132 AND b < 123123123213123);
Sure, this works, and is an improvement to the UNION-version, but I think
postgres should be able do these substitutions by itself in the
planner/optimizer...
Or is there any method for specifying optimizer hints?
Regards,
Jimmy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-01-13 12:08:04 | Re: Unique indexes not unique? |
| Previous Message | Tomasz Myrta | 2003-01-13 10:43:36 | Re: Unique indexes not unique? |