Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM-w4HOscbrS1kyjO0H7BnPozn1thrpa=h6xmxUTXX-aA9V8eA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans
Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. You're > thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different. > Is there any reason to consider more than one? I would have expected the narrowest one to be the best choice. There's something to be said for using the same index consistently but we already have that problem and make no attempt to do that. And partial indexes might be better but then we would already be considering them if their constraints are satisfied. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: