Re: Creating tons of tables to support a query - Mailing list pgsql-general

From S Dawalt
Subject Re: Creating tons of tables to support a query
Date
Msg-id 00b801c25813$63d8a300$82f96c82@HP0E2E6GKYFJS4
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Creating tons of tables to support a query  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>)
Responses Re: Creating tons of tables to support a query  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Creating tons of tables to support a query  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
List pgsql-general
Stephan Szabo said:

>
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jan Ploski wrote:
>
> > I am in particular wondering, why an index on message(sectionID,
dateSent)
> > does not make these queries comparably fast:
> >
> >     select msgnum from message where
> >         sectionID = ? and
> >         dateSent > ?
> >         order by dateSent
> >         limit 1;
>
> I don't think that'll use an index on (sectionID, dateSent) for the sort
> step.  I think an index on (dateSent,sectionID) might be, however.
>

  I know I've read this before on the list (probably several times).  But
either my skull is too thick or the topic too abstract; why is no index used
for (sectionID, dateSent) but (dateSent, sectionID) does?  They are the same
columns, but just reversed.  I don't see why that would make a difference.
Is there some rule-of-thumb for determining when an index is used and when
it isn't rather than trail and error using EXPLAIN?

  Shane



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Christoph Dalitz
Date:
Subject: Re: recommended books???
Next
From: Mourad Dhambri
Date:
Subject: pg_hba