Re: Composite index planner issues Was: Re: Constraint exclusion oddity with composite index
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Composite index planner issues Was: Re: Constraint exclusion oddity with composite index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46674ADD.2060904@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Composite index planner issues Was: Re: Constraint exclusion oddity with composite index (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Composite index planner issues Was: Re: Constraint exclusion oddity with composite index
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> I guess where I got confused is: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/indexes-multicolumn.html >>> >>> And explicitly: >>> >>> A multicolumn B-tree index can be used with query conditions that >>> involve any subset of the index's columns, but the index is most >>> efficient when there are constraints on the leading (leftmost) columns. > >> Considering the paragraph from the documentation above, should we change >> the documentation? > > That statement seems perfectly accurate to me. O.k. then perhaps I am being dense, but that statement says to me that the planner should be able to use the right element of a composite index but that it will not always do so. Considering an index of a,b if I search for b I would expect that the planner could use the index. Assuming of course that the planner would use the same index if it was just b. Further, I would expect a smaller chance of it using b if the index was a,c,b but that it "might" still use it. Is that not the case? Should I expect that even in the simplest of cases that we will not use an index unless it is *the* leftmost element? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: